LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



§ap, ji„ '- ©njtgrig^i Ifo, 



Shelf., 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



TESTED BY 



THE HOLY SCRIPTURES 



AND THE 



CANON LAW OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, 



PLEA FOR CHURCH UNITY. 



THE REV. W. D. WILSON, D.D. LL.D. L.H.D., 



EMERITUS PROFESSOR IN CORNELL UNIVERSITY, 

AUTHOR OF THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED, 

DEAN OF ST. ANDREWS, SYRACUSE, 

ETC., ETC., ETC , ETC. 



NEW YORK : 

JAMES POTT & CO., PUBLISHERS, 

14 and 16 Astor Place. 

1889. 



OCT 2 1889/ 

13%*-% 

••'ngtow. 







COPYWRIGHT iSSi), 
BY W. D. WILSON. 



PREFACE. 



The peculiarity of this essay, in which it differs 
from most others on the same subject — all others so 
far as I know — is the fact that it treats the question of 
the Papal Supremacy purely as a matter of fact 
and of history. No comparison is made or at- 
tempted between the doctrines taught, and the 
rites and usages practiced under that system, and 
those which prevail elsewhere. 

In any system of religion, church authority must 
be a most important element, aside from any ques- 
tion of Divine Authority and spiritual grace of 
which it may be the channel, since it must and will 
exercise a powerful influence upon the character and 
spiritual growth of its members, as we can see every- 
where around us. 

For this reason it has seemed to me desirable to 
have some short and handy treatise that discusses 



4 PREFACE. 

this question as a mere matter of historic facts, dis- 
entangled from, and unembarrassed by, association 
with questions of doctrine and of ritual, which are 
more or less distinct from it. 

With this brief explanation of the purpose and 
character of this little work, I commit it to the care- 
ful consideration of the reader and to the blessing 
of Almighty God. 

Syracuse, May, I889. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Chapter I.— THE PAPAL SUPREMACY AND THE 

HOLY SCRIPTURES 9 

The Apostolic Fathers 31 

Chapter II.— THE PAPAL SUPREMACY AND THE 

CANONS OF THE PRIIMTIVE CHURCH, 35 

Chapter III.— THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE 

PAPAL SUPREMACY 62 

Chapter IV.— THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM IN ENG- 
LAND 93 

The Reformation 106 

Chapter V.— THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM IN THE- 

UNITED STATES i<9 

Chapter VL— THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM AS A 

. BASIS OF UNION 149 

Chapter VII.— CONCLUSION— A PLEA FOR UNITY 1.69 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

AND 

THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE PAPAL SUPREMACY AND THE HOLY 
SCRIPTURES. 

Every time we repeat the Apostles' creed, we say, 
" 1 believe in the Holy CATHOLIC Church." Who- 
ever is duly baptized and received into any church, 
or branch of the Church of Christ, professes his 
belief in the teachings of our Lord and his Apos- 
tles, as contained and set forth in that creed. And 
even though, as in many cases it happens, the Apos- 
tles' creed is not used or obviously referred to in the 
administration of that Sacrament, yet all persons 
who profess to be Christians at all, or to have any 
belief in Christianity, believe in some sort of a 
Church as a part of the divine institutions that have 
been provided for the redemption and salvation of 
mankind. 

No one can read the Bible without finding that 
our Lord said, " I will build my Church . . and 



10 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Nor 
can he fail to see that our Lord gave his Apostles 
ample authority, as well as the influence of the Holy 
Spirit, for their guidance in arranging the principles 
and details of its organization and the materials and 
modes of accomplishing its work. 

The Apostles speak of the Church as His Body, 
(Col. i. 1 8 ; Eph. iv. 12), words which were doubt- 
less designed to denote the closest and most intimate 
relation between it and Him. We read, (Acts ii. 
47), that after the Ascension He "added to the 
Church" — by conversion and baptism — "daily such 
as should be saved," or, rather, such as were being 
saved. 

And yet it is the very common impression, in the 
community where we live, that the Roman church is 
the Catholic church — "the Holy Catholic Church" — 
and that all others besides those who are in that 
communion are merely seceders from it. 

Nor is this the worst of the case. Since 1870, at 
least, that Church has declared that the Bishop of 
Rome — the Pope — is in such a sense the Head of 
the Church as successor of St. Peter, that no one 
can be regarded as in the Church at all, or have any 
hope of salvation as a Christian, who does not ac^ 
knowledge that supremacy and receive as matter of 
faith all that the Pope may teach and command, 
whether as dogma or duty, as doctrine or discipline. 

If this view is well-founded, there is no help for it. 



AND THE HOL Y SCRIPTURES. j j 

We must all of us, however much we may like or 
dislike the doctrines and practices of the Romish 
Church, accept the supremacy of the Pope and sub- 
mit to all that he may choose to declare to be a part 
of the Faith, or necessary as a means of the salva- 
tion of our souls. 

Doubtless faith is of more importance than knowl- 
edge. But no such contrast may be made between 
faith and obedience. We must both believe and 
obey, whatever and whoever the Lord has ap- 
pointed, though our responsibility may be deter- 
mined by the opportunities we may have to know 
the truth and do what he has commanded. 

We remember that the poor, trembling girl who 
suffered for many years "and was nothing bettered, 
but rather grew worse" by all that the Physicians 
could do for her, was healed by the mere touch of 
the hem of the Divine Saviour's garment. It is prob- 
able that she knew nothing, and had no means of 
knowing anything, more of Him than that He was 
the Lord and had power to heal. 

We remember, too, that the thief on the cross recog- 
nized Him as the Saviour and in sincere and earnest 
repentance uttered the prayer, "Lord, remember me 
when Thou comest into Thy kingdom," and he was 
assured that he should be that day with his Lord in 
Paradise. No word was said about Baptism, or the 
Lord's Supper, for which he had no opportunity. 

But assuredly we can draw no inference from these 



I2 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

cases in favor of those who have the opportunity to 
know and to do — to read the Holy Scriptures, join 
the Church, participate in its worship and to receive 
the Holy Sacraments which our Lord has instituted 
and commanded us to observe. The promise is to 
those that believe and are baptized, and the Apos- 
tles were to teach their converts to observe all 
things that He had commanded, everywhere, always 
even unto the end of the world. 

Let us, then, turn to the Holy Scriptures and see 
what they teach on the subject. 

I. It seems that on more than one occasion there 
arose a question, "a strife" among the Apostles as 
to who should be the greatest in the Kingdom of 
Heaven." (Matt, xviii., I, Mark ix., 33, Luke ix., 
46). On these occasions our Lord gave no intimation 
of any superiority of one over another, except that 
superiority in spiritual excellence which always comes 
from genuine humility and excellence in the works 
of charity. 

The second occasion, as related by St. Luke, is 
more significant (Luke, xxii., 24). It occurred at a 
much later period in His ministry. It seems to have 
been at the very time when He was approaching "the 
end" and after the time when our Lord made the 
declaration to St. Peter on which the Romanists lay 
so much stress— "Thou art the Rock." St. Luke says, 
"there was a strife among them which of them," — 
the twelve — "should be the greatest. And He said 



AND THE IIOL Y SCRIPTURES. 



13 



unto them, the Kings of the Gentiles exercise lord- 
ship over them and they that exercise authority upon 
them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be 
so." Then, after a few words, He continues : "Ye 
are they who have continued with me in my temp- 
tations and I appoint unto you a kingdom as my 
Father hath appointed unto me, that ye may eat 
and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on 
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." 

Here is no allusion to, but rather, as it would 
seem, a pretty stringent exclusion of, any superiority 
of Peter over the rest, or any one of them over an- 
other, save and excepting always that superiority in 
personal holiness which God gives to those who the 
most earnestly strive for it. On any other consider- 
ation, as it would seem, it is not even His to give, 
(Matt, xx., 23.) 

The passage quoted from St. Matthew with re- 
gard to St. Peter, (Matt., xvi. 16,) relates what 
occurred before both the event spoken of by St. 
Luke just cited and this other just now quoted from 
St. Matthew himself. It would seem that our Lord 
could not have used these words and made these 
declarations without some reservation in favor of 
St. Peter, if the Romanist view of the former pass- 
age be correct. 

II. Let us now proceed to consider the text, (St. 
Matt., xvi. 18) : "And I say unto thee that thou art 
Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 



H 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



I do not propose to discuss this text at length and 
to show precisely what was the meaning intended to 
be conveyed in it or by it. I will make only a few 
remarks on it. 

(i) In the first place, this confession of our Lord's 
true character and nature, as the Christ, the Son of 
God, was made by Peter at Caesarea Philippi, the 
greatest distance to which our Lord ever went from 
Jerusalem, and he was also the only one to deny 
Him when questioned about Him at Jerusalem. He 
was, indeed, the first and foremost to confess Him at 
this place, far remote as it was from all danger, and 
the only one that denied Him at the hour and place 
of greatest peril. 

(2) In the next place, whatever the declaration 
may have meant, or have been intended to mean, 
this statement, though given, indeed, by St. Mat- 
thew, St. Mark, who wrote under St. Peter's special 
direction, says not a word about his being a rock, or 
the building of the Church on it, or him, as the case 
may be. All that he says is : "And Peter answer- 
eth and saith unto him, thou art the Christ. And he 
charged them that they should tell no man" of him. 

Now, is it Peter's modesty that guides the Evan- 
gelist in this omission ? If so, surely the Papists are 
quite unlike St. Peter in this respect. Or, was the 
omission because neither St. Peter nor St. Mark at- 
tached to the declaration the importance and mean- 



AND THE HOL Y SCRIPTURES. 



15 



ing that the modern advocates of the Papal suprem- 
acy ascribe to it ? 

In either case this omission by St. Mark, under 
these circumstances, seems to me to be fatal to the 
Romish view. If the passage, as recorded by St. 
Matthew had no such importance as the Romanists 
attach to it, we can well understand why, as a matter 
of mere modesty and personal feeling, St. Mark 
should omit it. But if it conveyed the authority 
for which the Romanists contend, modesty is no 
justification for its omission. It conveyed a prerog- 
ative which neither St. Peter nor St. Mark had any 
right to ignore or to omit. 

St. Luke, also, refers to this interview, (ix., 18-23.) 
But he says nothing about "the Rock," nor yet 
about the building of the Church on it, or him, as 
the case may have been. He merely says: Peter 
answering said, "the Christ of God." And, as in St. 
Mark, "He straightly charged them to tell no man 
that thing." 

St. Luke wrote under the direction of St. Paul. 
Are we to assume that either St. Paul or St. Luke 
knew nothing of a supremacy, thought by some to 
have been implied in the words which St. Matthew 
ascribes to our Lord ; or, on the other hand, that 
they knew of the words that were used, indeed, on 
that occasion, but did not consider them of suffi- 
cient importance to repeat them in giving an account 
of this confession? The confession is, indeed, in 



1 6 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

some sense, the rock and corner stone on which 
the Church is built. But, in any case, it seems un- 
questionable that neither St. Peter nor St. Paul, 
neither St. Mark nor St. Luke, supposed there was 
any such meaning in the words as our modern Ro- 
manists claim for them. 

St. John, in his Gospel, which was written some 
thirty or more years after those of the other three 
Evangelists, Sts. Matthew, Mark and Luke, (about 
A. D. 53-63,) says nothing about this conversation 
between our Lord and St. Peter. And the time 
when he, St. John, wrote (A. D. 90) is important. 
By that time the supremacy of St. Peter, if he had 
any, must not only have become well known, but of 
the greatest practical importance to the Church. 

I consider these "silences," therefore, as most em- 
phatic and expressive utterances against any such 
claim as the Romanists put forth. 

(3) Then, we find in the Gospel of St. John (xxi., 
15-18,) a passage which is much quoted by the Ro- 
manists — rather for popular effect, I think, than be- 
cause they attach any importance to it in an argu- 
mentative point of view. 

The passage referred to is that in which our Lord 
asks Peter three times with regard, to his love for 
Him, and on Peter's answer in the affirmative He 
repeats three times, also, the charge : "Feed my 
lambs" — "feed my sheep." But we must remember 
that Peter had been in disgrace and apostacy from 



AND THE HOL Y SCRIPTURES. 



17 



the time of his thrice-repeated denial on the even- 
ing of his Master's trial, when most of all, if, indeed, 
He can be said at all to have needed that His friends 
should stand by Him. These declarations of our Lord 
did, doubtless, restore him to the position he had 
lost, and to his share, whatever that may have been, 
in the pastoral office of an Apostle. But we must 
assuredly take these words with those other "three" 
in which Peter denied thrice that he knew our Lord. 

Up to this time of restoration , Peter was no "saint" 
at all ; he was, rather, in disgrace. When he denied 
our Lord, he not only denied Him three times — this 
he did not only repeatedly, but with anger and great 
earnestness, or at least solemnity, for the Evangelist 
says he swore ("with an oath," are the words used). 
Hence it is that I say, that up to that time not only 
was Peter no saint, but he was actually in the dis- 
grace of apostacy. He had denied his Lord and he 
had been restored to the divine favor. Judas had 
betrayed him. Peter denied Him and afterwards 
repented and after repeating his declaration of faith 
and love three times, with tears, he was restored. 
But Judas did not repent, was not restored, but com- 
mitted suicide and "went to his own place." 

In view of these facts the declaration, or charge, 
rather, though thrice repeated, must be considered, 
in the first place, as merely raising Peter to the place 
he had lost by his cowardice. 

But did these words accomplish anything more 



jg the papal supremacy 

than to make him an equal with the rest of the 
Eleven ? Most assuredly they do not necessarily in 
themselves imply anything more. And we shall see 
further on whether they were, intended for anything 
more. 

III. I pass then to the next text. It occurs in 
immediate connection with the declaration I have 
been considering, (Matt, xvi., 19) : "And I will give 
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and 
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound 
in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven." 

These are, doubtless, words of the gravest import. 
And without going into detail and disputed points, 
I think we may say that they contain clearly two 
points. 

(1) The use of "the keys" implies opening and 
shutting. And we find that on the day of Pente- 
cost, immediately after the reception of the Holy 
Spirit for the work committed to them, St. Peter 
preached to the Jews, when about three thousand 
converts were made — were baptized and added to 
the number that were being saved and "continued 
steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine" — "receiving 
their instruction — "and fellowship, with the break- 
ing of the bread and in the prayers." 
■ So, again, we find St. Peter now foremost in 
preaching to the Gentiles — "(opening the kingdom 
of heaven with the keys to them ?)" in the case of 



AND THE HOL Y SCRIPTURES. 



19 



the centurion and his friends. They were converted 
and baptized and thus admitted to the church (Acts, 

x. 44-49)- 

Then, again, we find Peter the foremost in shut- 
ting the doors — in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, 
his wife. It was a severe case of discipline. But 
they had "lied to the Holy Ghost ;" that is, they 
had said, or professed, that which they knew to be 
false, and they had lied to the Apostles, all of them, 
not to Peter alone. But Peter alone was foremost 
in denouncing their fraud and delivering them over 
to the terrible penalty that followed. 

(2) But to return to the other part of our text, 
which conveys a remarkable grant of power: 
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound 
in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
shalt be loosed in heaven." 

Now, whatever these words may have meant, they 
are repeated word for word and in the same form 
to all the Twelve, Judas included, shortly after, 
(Matt., xviii. 18,) and in a much more emphatic 
manner, and with something of detail that is of in- 
terest. It is now, "Verily I say unto you, whatso- 
ever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, 
and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be 
loosed in heaven." 

In St. John's Gospel, (xx., 23,) there occur words 
which are usually considered as of the same import : 
"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 



20 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are re- 
tained." 

This, in the lowest estimate that can be put upon 
it, as I think, means, that whomsoever they should 
admit into the Church by the confession of the true 
faith of Christ, the Son of God, and by Baptism, had 
their sins forgiven, and were put into a state of sal- 
vation — "added," in fact, as St. Luke says, "to those 
that were being saved." And conversely, whomso- 
ever they should reject, either by refusing to them, 
on sufficient grounds, Holy Baptism, or by excom- 
munication from the means of grace in the Church, 
and fellowship with its members, should be in the 
state of a heathen, or probably worse now— "a hea- 
then and a publican." 

But in both of these cases, (Matt., xviii. 18,. and 
John, xx. 23,) the authority is given to all the Apostles 
alike, and no more and nothing more to St. Peter 
than to the other eleven in the case of St. Matthew, 
and the other ten in the case-of St. John (Judas had 
fallen). 

There is no complete account of the organization 
of the Church anywhere given in the New Test- 
ament, so far as mere details are concerned. But 
in Heb., vi. 1-3 we have an enumeration of the 
first "principles," and the supremacy of St. Peter 
is not one of them. They are, as enumerated, Re- 
pentance, Faith, Baptism, Confirmation (or laying 
on of hands) Resurrection from the dead, and Eter- 
nal Judgment." 



AND THE HOL Y SCRIPTURES. 2 1 

i 

Of course, there could be no valid Baptism that 
did not bring one into the Church and add the re- 
cipient to "the number of those that should (or 
might) be saved ;" and no Confirmation that did not 
admit those that received it to full communion and 
fellowship. But nothing about any supremacy of 
St. Peter, or the submission to any Pope. 

We have now two things before us : St. Peter 
was the first to confess our Lord in reference to his 
proper nature, and, alas ! the first, too, to deny all 
knowledge of Him. After his restoration to divine 
favor he was the first to "open the kingdom" — use 
the keys — to Jews, and, after that, by special guid- 
ance, to the Gentiles also. Then, he was the first to 
use the keys in shutting the kingdom, by way of 
discipline, in the case of Ananias and his wife Sap- 
phira. 

So, too, it was Peter who denounced Simon Ma- 
gus : "But Peter said unto him, thy money perish 
with thee, because thou has thought that the gift of 
God may be purchased with money." (Acts, viii. 26.) 
In these cases he had, and exercised, unquestiona- 
bly, a primacy, or, rather, as I should say, a prece- 
dency over and before the other Apostles. 

(3) Peter was also first and foremost as the spokes- 
man of the Apostles, after their imprisonment (Acts, 
v. 17-29.) "Then Peter and the other Apostles an- 
swered and said, we ought to obey God rather than 
men." 



22 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

It was, however, James, the brother of John, and not 
Peter who was the first of the Apostles to be called 
to martyrdom, (Acts, xii. 3.) And although Herod 
saw fit to put James to death, thus giving the first 
and most glorious of all primacy or precedency, that 
of martyrdom to St. James, he seems to have been 
content in regard to Peter with merely putting "him 
in prison." 

IV. This brings us down to about the time of the 
organization of the Church at Jerusalem. And we 
find that not Peter, but James, "the brother of our 
Lord," was placed over the Church as its first local 
Bishop. This was the first Church that was ever 
fully organized and St. James, and not Peter, was 
placed over it as its head under Christ. 

And from this time, probably as early as A. D. 
35 or '6, James, and not Peter, had the "primacy" — 
the only primacy and all the primacy in or over the 
Church that we know anything about. Up to this 
time the name of Peter always comes first in the 
order when two or more of the Apostles are men- 
tioned byname, Peter, James, and John, in the order. 
But after this event the order is changed ; it is James 
and Peter, or Cephas and John, etc., (Gal., ii. 9.) 
Acts, xxi. 18, St. Luke says that Paul, in his visit to 
Jerusalem, "went in with us to James and all the 
brethren were present." There is no special men- 
tion of Peter as being of more importance than the 
others. 



AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 23 

We find, also, several indications that St. Peter, 
although one of the Apostles, was in some sense 
subject to their direction. Thus, Acts, viii. 14, we 
read that when the Apostles which were at Jerusa- 
lem heard that Samaria had received the word of 
God, they (the Apostles) sent unto them Peter and 
John, "to hold a confirmation there." James was at 
this time Bishop of Jerusalem and, as such, the Head 
and Primate of the Apostles. He, with others, sent 
Peter and John to Samaria. Just imagine the 
Bishops of some little towns about Rome, or "the 
College of the Cardinals," if you please, sending the 
Pope to Milan, or to Naples, to hold a confirmation, 
to administer the rite of "laying on of hands," to a 
class duly prepared for confirmation ! 

So, again, at the Council of Jerusalem in about 
A. D. 48 or 50, James presided (Acts, xv.) Peter, as 
one of the speakers, related how God had made 
choice of him that the Gentiles should by his mouth 
hear the word of the Gospel and believe. Then, 
Paul and Barnabas declared what miracles God had 
wrought among the Gentiles by them. And then, 
after due discussion and deliberation, James, who 
seems to have presided in the Council, gave his opin- 
ion : "Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble 
not them which from the Gentiles have turned to 
God," etc. And the letter, as suggested by St. 
James, and in the very words which he uttered, was 
sent in the name of the Apostles and Elders and 



24 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



the whole Church." "It seemed good unto us . . 
to send chosen men unto you ;" and they add, "it 
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them"— the 
Apostles, Elders, and the whole Church, to lay upon 
them no greater burden than these necessary things, 
pertaining to the Christian life, and omitting all the 
peculiarities of the law of Moses so far as mere 
ritual was concerned. 

Now, manifestly here was no supremacy of St. 
Peter. No primacy — not even a precedence ; ex- 
cept, perhaps, the fact that he appears to have been 
the first to speak in the Council. But, assuredly, the 
man who presides in any Council in which he is 
present and of which he is a member, is, if anybody 
is so, the Primate. 

And it is to be noticed that in the Letter that was 
sent by the Council, St. Peter neither wrote it, nor 
was it written in terms which he dictated. Nor was 
it sent in his name, as being anything more than one 
among the rest, one among equals. 

Now, this is not merely negative testimony, as it 
is sometimes called ; that is, the absence of any tes- 
timony to the primacy or supremacy of St. Peter, 
such as is claimed for the Pope, when we might have 
expected it. It is more. It is a statement of facts 
that are inconsistent with any such idea and thus 
precludes it from the possibility of being held as true 
by those who profess to regard the Holy Scriptures 
as of divine authority, or as giving a true— not to 



AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 2 $ 

say complete— account of Christianity and the Chris- 
tian Church. We not only have no proof that St. 
Peter was regarded as the prince of the Apostles, 
having precedence and dominion over them ; but we 
have facts and statements which, as we have seen, 
are totally inconsistent and irreconcilable with such 
a doctrine. 

Precedency, or forwardness, in speaking and acting 
there may have been and, doubtless, there was ; but 
anything like a primacy, or supremacy, could hardly 
have been manifested until there had arisen some 
occasion for a combined action, as in a Council. 
And when this occurred, after the selection of Mat- 
thias, and after the organization of the Church, 
James, and not Peter, appears to have had the prec- 
edence or primacy. 

V. The expression, "obedience to the Faith," 
occurs several times as descriptive of the result of 
the work of the Ministry, (Acts, vi. 7.) But there 
is never a word about any "obedience" to St. Peter 
or to the Bishop of Rome, (Rom., xvi. 26.) In 
Romans i., 5, St. Paul describes the result of his 
work as an Apostle, as that for which he was set 
apart to that work, as "to bring all nations" (the 
Gentiles ?) to obedience to the Faith ;" not merely 
to its knowledge or acceptance, but to obedience 
to its commands and the observance of its institu- 
tions, obedience to the Faith — not to Peter or to 
the Pope. (See also Rom., xvi. 26.) 



2 6 \THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

(i) But we have some positive declarations on 
this subject. Thus, St. Paul, in writing to the Cor- 
inthians, (2 Cor., xi. 5,) says of himself: "I sup- 
pose that I was not a whit behind the very chiefest 
Apostles." He makes no exception, and states no 
limitation to the meaning of his words. Surely, if 
he had known any point or respect in which St. 
Peter had any primacy or supremacy — I do not say 
precedency in time — but any primacy or supremacy 
over him, or the rest of the Apostles, St. Paul 
would never have used these words. 

(2) Then, again, in his Epistle to the Gallatians, 
St. Paul says (ii., 7-9) that when he went up to 
Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles who were in 
the Ministry before him and had been appointed by 
our Lord in person during His earthly life, they "in 
conference added nothing to him, but, contrariwise, 
when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision 
was committed to me, as the Gospel of the circum- 
cision was unto Peter, and when James and Cephas 
(Peter) and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived 
the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me 
and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we 
should go to the heathen and they to the circum- 
cision." 

Now, here are several things to be noted : (1) St. 
Paul had been preaching successfully before he had 
seen Peter, or knew anything of him except by 
name as one of the chief Apostles — "pillars" — 



AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 2 y 

preaching, I say, to such an extent that they "added 
nothing to him" (as we may understand) either in 
the knowledge of the truths of the Gospel, nor yet 
in authority to preach. 

(3) In the third place, Peter concurred with James 
and John, (and James is named first in the order — 
James, Peter, and John,) in giving St. Paul jurisdic- 
tion over the Gentiles, as they themselves — they, 
not Peter — had over the Jews. There was no reser- 
vation for any "primacy," or "supremacy," of St. 
Peter. Nor is Peter mentioned as having any exclu- 
sive jurisdiction, primacy, or supremacy over the 
Jews and the converts that had been made, or might 
be made, from among the Jews. It was a joint affair 
between the three who seemed to be pillars, James, 
Peter, and John, with no hint of a superiority on the 
part of St. Peter. 

(4) Then, again, in his Epistles to the Corinthians, 
(2 Cor., xi. 28,) St. Paul, in speaking of his labors 
and sufferings in the cause of Christ, says ; "Besides 
those things that are without that which cometh on 
me daily, the care of all the Churches" He makes 
no mention of St. Peter. He speaks of the care of 
all the Churches. We may well supply the limita- 
tion that would restrict its scope to the Churches 
which he himself had founded among the Gentiles. 
But, even so, there is no recognition of any subordi- 
nation to St. Peter, or of St. Peter as having any 
care over them. 



28 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

(5) We have one more very striking passage in St. 
Paul's Epistles (Gal., ii. 14.) Here St. Paul disap- 
proved of the practice which was being pursued by 
St. Peter and severely reprimands him for it. He 
says, "to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not 
for one hour." This was at Jerusalem, and while 
both St. James, the Bishop, and many of the other 
Apostles were there. But, most assuredly, St. Paul 
could have used no such language to St. Peter, or 
with regard to him, if it had been understood at 
that time that any primacy or supremacy over the 
whole Church, or over the other Apostles, such as 
Romanists now claim, had been given him. 

And this becomes the more noteworthy if we 
consider St. Paul's great care and jealousy about 
intruding into any other man's field of labor— juris- 
diction, we should call it in these days. Thus he 
says, (Rom., xv. 20 :) "I have striven so to preach 
the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I 
should build upon another man's foundation." This 
was written to the Romans; and, of course, there- 
fore, St. Peter had laid no foundation at Rome, nor 
had he, in the opinion of St. Paul, any especial or 
exclusive right or prerogative there. 

Now, surely, St. Paul could not have said these 
things if he had known of, or acknowledged any 
primacy, supremacy, or oversight, either in fact or in 
right, over the Churches to which he refers. 

Or if, in these writings of St. Paul, we are to find 



AND THE HOL Y SCRIPTURES. 



2 9 



any trace of a supremacy at all, we must find two 
and not one merely. We have seen (Gal., ii. 7-9,) 
that there was a sort of a division of "the field," 
which was the "world," between Peter and Paul ; 
Paul and Barnabas for the Gentiles, and James, 
Peter, and j ohn for the circumcision, or the Jews. If, 
then, there is any primacy, there are two, and we 
who are or were of the Gentiles and not of the Jews 
are to look for our Primate somewhere in the line of 
succession from St. Paul. 

(6) And we find St. Paul writing Epistles to eight, 
at least, of the Churches he had founded, and giving 
instructions to Timothy and Titus with regard to 
the administration of others ; the Church at Eph- 
esus and the Churches in Crete, with no reference or 
allusion to St. Peter, and with as much freedom, and 
in a tone of as much authority, as if there had been 
no St. Peter within the range of his knowledge. 

St. Peter also writes one or two Epistles ; not, 
however, to churches that he had founded, or other- 
wise, but to individual believers — to those, it is com- 
monly understood, who were of Jewish descent and 
had been converted, but were scattered abroad 
among the Gentiles throughout Pontus, Gallatia, 
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, that is, through- 
out Asia Minor, from the southeast corner of the 
Black Sea (Pontus,) Bithynia on the northwest 
corner of the Peninsula, Gallatia and Cappadocia in 
the interior and southeast, as well as Asia, in the 



30 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



narrower sense of the word, in the southwestern 
portion of what we now call Asia Minor. He 
writes, however, not as Pope, but as an "Elder;" 
that is, as one who is old in knowledge and experi- 
ence, as well as in years. 

In his second Epistle St. Peter speaks of his "be- 
loved brother Paul" and his Epistles, speaking of 
them as authority, and as containing things "hard to 
be understood," of which some persons make an 
unprofitable use. But in all this St. Peter evidently 
speaks of St. Paul as being, at least, an equal both 
in regard to his authority as a teacher and his juris- 
diction as an Apostle, or "wise master builder" (I. 
Cor., iii. 10,) in the Church of God. 

Surely, this is both unaccountable and unintelligi- 
ble, if the writers of Holy Scriptures had any such 
idea of St. Peter and of the supremacy of the Bishop 
of Rome, as his successors, as the modern advocates 
of the Papal Supremacy claim for it and for them. 
The Scriptures do not even so much as say that St. 
Peter was ever at Rome. But, on the contrary, they 
create rather a strong presumption that he was not, 
by speaking of his being at Babylon when he wrote 
his first Epistle. 

In fact, the Scriptures say almost nothing about 
St. Peter after the Council at Jerusalem, (A. D. 48 
or 50.) They follow St. Paul in his course of preach- 
ing the Gospel ; but they say nothing of St. Peter 
that gives us any account of the places where he 



AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



31 



went, or what he did, except the writing of the two 
Epistles that we have under his name. And of 
these the first is commonly supposed to have been 
written about A. D. 60 and was dated from Babylon, 
down in the part of Asia near the Persian Gulf. 

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 

This brings us down to the close of the Scripture 
account, and the close of the Apostolic age. 

VI. But it is well to lookalittle farther, especially 
as we have indisputable testimonies and other state- 
ments which throw light on the subject. 

We have what are known as the writings of "the 
Apostolic Fathers," who wrote at the close of the 
first, or the beginning of the second, century. St. 
Clement was Bishop of Rome, according to the 
commonly received dates, from A. D. 91 to A. D. 
100 — nine years. He wrote an Epistle to the Cor- 
inthians, not, indeed, in his own name, but as 
from the Church at Rome. He describes very much 
the same state of things as is disclosed to us in the 
Epistles of St. Paul, and gives very much the same 
advice, though in a much less authoritative tone. 
In the letter he makes mention of St. Peter only 
twice. The first time (ch. v.) is in the following 
words : "Let us set before our eyes the holy Apos- 
tles ; St. Peter who, by unjust envy, underwent, not 
one or two, but maiy sufferings, till at last, being 
martyred, he went to the place of glory that was due 



32 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



unto him. For the same cause did St. Paul in like 
manner receive the reward of his patience," etc. 
Then, again, in ch. xlvii., St. Clement exhorts them: 
"Take the Epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle 
in your hands . . . Verily, he did by the Spirit 
admonish you concerning himself and Cephas, (Peter) 
and Apollos, because that even then ye had begun 
to fall into parties and factions among yourselves." 

These two are the only mentions that are made 
of St. Peter at all. And, assuredly, they neither 
assert nor imply any "primacy," or "supremacy" on 
the part of St. Peter, though written from Rome 
and by a Bishop of Rome. They say nothing of 
St. Peter as having so much as even been there in 
person. 

Then, we have the letters, seven in number, of St. 
Ignatius, who had been Bishop of Antioch. He 
was brought to Rome and suffered martyrdom there 
somewhere between A. D. 97 and A. D. 115, the 
date is not quite certain. 

Now, among these Epistles, all of which were writ- 
ten while on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom, 
one of them is addressed to "the Romans." In this 
letter he makes no mention of St. Peter, nor of any 
Bishop as being at that time at Rome ; although in 
all the other six he speaks of their respective Bish- 
ops, sometimes by name, and always as appointed 
by divine authority for the instruction of the Chris- 
tian believers and preserving the unity of the Church, 



AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



33 



saying expressly, "that there is no Church without 
a Bishop," besides its Presbyters and Deacons. Yet 
in writing to the Romans he makes no mention of 
any Bishop there. The order of the Bishops of 
Rome is pretty well known : Linus, 67-79 » Cletus, 
79-91; Clement, 91-100; Evaristus, 100- no, and 
Alexander, 1 10-120. And it must have been while 
one of the three last named was Bishop there, or, 
possibly, during the interval between some two of 
them, as between Clement and Evaristus, or between 
Evaristus and Alexander, that the letter was written. 

But be this as it may, there is no mention of St. 
Peter or of any other man as Bishop of the Church 
of Rome at that time. 

But in one place St. Ignatius does mention the 
name of St. Peter. He writes to the Romans, iv., 
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, command you ; they 
were Apostles. I am but a condemned man," etc. 
And this is the only mention of St. Peter, or refer- 
ence to him, in the seven Epistles. 

And besides these two, Clement and Ignatius, we 
have "the Catholic Epistle of St. Barnabas," some- 
what in character like the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
But, although it is somewhat lengthy, there is no 
mention of St. Peter in it. 

Then we have also the ''Visions of Hennas," his 
"Commands," and his book of "Similitudes," in 
which he discusses very freely the chief points of 
Doctrine and Discipline as taught and exercised in 



34 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

his day ; but no mention of St. Peter. He speaks 
of a "beautiful virgin," rising out of the Tiber, and 
of our Lord as appearing to instruct him (Hermas.) 
He alludes to Clement, who was probably the 
Bishop of Rome at the time. He was directed by 
"the Beautiful Virgin" to write two books, and to 
give one to Clement, who would send it to foreign 
Churches. 

But, although we find so little about St. Peter, we 
shall see in due time that the first assertion of the fact 
that St. Peter was ever at Rome at all, was made about 
one hundred years after this time, by three or four 
writers, Caius, Tertullian, and Iraeneus. These were 
the first authors to speak of St. Peter as ever having 
been at Rome at all. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE PAPAL SUPREMACY, AND THE CANONS OF THE 
PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 

I turn now to testimony of another kind — that of 
the Canons of the early Church. 

You will remember that our Lord gave his Apos- 
ties pretty ample authority for regulating all matters 
of doctrine and discipline in this Church (Matt., 
xviii. 28, John, xx. 23.) We have seen, also, how 
He gave them the Holy Ghost to guide them in 
their work and the performance of their duties, and, 
we may add, their responsibilities as well. And we 
have seen, moreover, how about the very important 
question with regard to compelling the Gentile con- 
verts to keep the Mosaic law, the Apostles, Elders 
and brethren came together to consult about the 
matter. And the early Bishops seem to have under- 
stood and believed that the authority, the duty and 
the responsibility, with the promise of the same 
blessed help and guidance, was extended to them 



36 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



also. Hence they began early and often to assemble 
in Councils, or Synods, for consultation and agree- 
ment upon any matters that perplexed them, or in 
regard to which they were in doubt what to do. 
The rules, or conclusions, thus agreed upon were 
commonly called Canons. And of the rules, or 
Canons, thus agreed upon we have a very ancient 
code, called the Apostolic Canons. For the most 
part we know nothing of the persons by whom, the 
places where, or the time when, they were made. 
But we find them in general use and widely known 
at the time of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325. 

This Council of Nice was the first General Council 
of the whole Church that was ever held, after that 
at Jerusalem, if we are to regard that as a General 
Council (Acts xv.) Up to the conversion of Con- 
stantine, about twelve years before the Council of 
Nice, Christianity was a religion that was not allowed 
by law in the Roman Empire. Much of the time 
Christians were actually under persecution. No 
General Council could be held. But after the con- 
version of Constantine and his proclamation recog- 
nizing Christianity as a lawful religion, A. D. 313, 
Christians could come together from all parts of the 
Roman Empire. And we find him calling them 
together to consult on several very important mat- 
ters. 

Now, in order to understand and appreciate the 
matter before us, we must recall the fact that the 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 37 

Roman Empire included at this time nearly the whole 
known world, from Britain, France and Spain on the 
north, Africa and Egypt on the south, to Asia as far 
east as India. It was, moreover, divided at that 
time into thirteen Dioceses, as they were called, much 
as our country is divided now into what we call "the 
States of the Union." Each Diocese was divided 
into what were called Provinces, much as our States 
are divided now into counties. Of these Provinces 
we have an enumeration of one hundred and eight- 
een. In each Province, as in our counties, there was 
always one city which was for them "a seat of gov- 
ernment," or, what we call a county seat with us. 
Now, in many of the cities in a Province, as well as 
in the chief city, seat of government, or metropolis, 
there were Bishops, one in each of the cities. But 
the Bishop of the chief city, or seat of government, 
was always regarded as having a sort of primacy, or 
oversight, over all the other Bishops in his Province, 
much as the English Archbishops of Canterbury 
and York have now in England over their respect- 
ive Provinces of Canterbury and York. Each of 
these ^suburban cities," as they were called, which 
had a Bishop of its own, constituted what we would 
now call a Diocese, and was then called a Parish ; 
and Parishes, in the modern sense of the term, did 
not then exist ; or, if they existed at all, they were 
not generally known and did not extensively pre- 
vail. 



33 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



At first, of course, the believers, the number of 
converts and worshippers, in any city were but few. 
But as they increased and multiplied, it seems to 
have been the practice to provide additional church 
buildings, or places of worship, for their accommo- 
dation. But they were not divided into Parishes in 
any modern sense, with separate parochial organiza- 
tions. The Bishop always had under him a body of 
Presbyters, as well as Deacons and others, who were 
competent for all the ordinary services, under the 
direction of their Bishop. 

I have spoken of the great General Council of 
Nice, A, D. 325. There were several others of 
which the three next following were the most im- 
portant, and all of them that were of any import- 
ance for our present purpose ; namely, Constanti- 
nople, A. D. 381; Ephesus, A. D. 431, and Chal- 
cedon, A. D. 451, extending over a period of 125 
years of the Church's history. 

The principal object before each and all of these 
Councils was to settle or agree upon the proper form 
in which to state some of the doctrines concerning 
our Lord and the Holy Spirit. And as a result of 
their deliberations, Ave have an enlargement of the 
Apostles' Creed into the form which we have now 
and call the Nicene Creed. 

But the subject of Discipline came also before 
these Councils. 

I. The Conncil of Nice had Bishops present 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 39 

from, if not all, yet at least some of the remote parts 
of the Empire, and part of the list of those who 
subscribed the proceedings is lost. But Hosius, of 
Cordova in Spain, presided. The Bishop of Rome 
was not there. We have good evidence that there 
were three Bishops from England present, though 
their names are not found in that part of the list 
which remains to us. 

Can. iv. distinctly recognizes the Provincial system, 
as then in existence ; that is, the Bishops of 
each Province, in the sense of the word just ex- 
plained, were regarded as making, with the other 
Clergy and the brethren of the Laity, a collective 
and organic Branch of the Church, and abundantly 
competent for all the purposes of preaching the 
Gospel, administering Sacraments, and enforcing the 
Discipline of a godly life. 

This Canon provides that in every Province the 
Bishops shall be consecrated by all the Bishops in 
that Province. But if that is impossible, then by at 
least three Bishops, the rest giving their consent in 
writing, and the Metropolitan, that is, the Bishop of 
the city which is the seat of the civil government of 
the Province, approving and confirming what is 
done. 

The v. Canon provides " that Synods or Councils 
shall be assembled twice every year in every Prov- 
ince." That all the Bishops and Presbyters being 
assembled together, questions of discipline — nothing 



40 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

said about doctrines — "may be examined into and 
adjusted ;" these Synods to be held, one of them 
" before Lent " and the other " in the season of 
Autumn." 

The vi. Canon ordains " That the ancient customs 
shall prevail and the Sees of Alexandria, Rome and 
Antioch — the former in Africa, the latter in Asia, 
while Rome was, of course, in Europe — are men- 
tioned by name as having something of a jurisdic- 
tion over other Churches or Provinces, but yet in 
all these places the " ancient privileges are to be pre- 
served." 

And yet it is difficult, if not impossible, to say 
what that jurisdiction or oversight could have 
amounted to. Nor is it necessary for any of the 
purposes I have in hand to attempt to reach any 
definite views on the subject. We shall soon see that 
the Bishops of certain of the larger cities of the 
Roman Empire, as Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and, 
at a later period, Constantinople, were regarded as in 
some sense patriarchs, " principal fathers," for that 
is what the word means, over the Churches in the 
regions lying around about them. 

At this time (A. D. 325,) the Bishop of Jerusalem, 
now called the Bishop of ^Elia, was under the 
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caesarea as his 
Metropolitan, although until the fall of Jerusalem 
the Church in that city had been regarded as the 
Mother Church, and its Bishop had been held to be 
the Primate of the whole Christian Church. 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 4! 

And at this time, too, it is clear that the Bishop 
of Rome was not regarded as Primate of the whole 
Church, nor as having any jurisdiction over Alexan- 
dria, Antioch or Jerusalem. He appears, from evi- 
dence to have had, at the time, a sort of patriarchal 
jurisdiction over " the suburbicarian districts," which 
cannot have extended north of Italy, although it 
may have included the adjoining islands of Sicily and 
Sardinia. 

It certainly did not include Milan on the north, 
nor yet Spain in the west, or France or England at 
the northwest. 

The Council of Nice, as I have said, was held in 
A. D. 325, and was attended by three hundred and 
eighteen Bishops. 

II. The next General Council was held at Con- 
stantinople in A. D. 381, fifty-six years after that of 
Nice, and was somewhat less largely attended, there 
having been present only about one hundred and 
fifty Bishops, and these mostly oriental. It has 
nevertheless been accepted as a General Council by 
all parts of the Church, and was especially so recog- 
nized by the subsequent Councils at Ephesus and 
Chalcedon. 

It added to the expansion of the Apostles' Creed, 
which had been made at the Council of Nice with 
special reference to the divinity of Christ— a further 
expansion and amplification concerning the third 
person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost. 



42 



1HE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



But in reference to the subject more immediately 
before us, there were two of the Canons that are 
especially important. 

It seems that some of the Bishops — those of Alex- 
andria and Antioch are especially named — had been 
seeking to extend their jurisdiction and supremacy, 
if not over the whole Church, yet, at least, beyond 
the proper limits that had been assigned to them. 
In view of these facts, the Council decreed (Canon 
i.) that Bishops must not go beyond their borders, 
nor bring confusion into the Churches. 

But according to the Canons, the Bishop of Alex- 
andria must have the administration of the affairs 
of Egypt only. 

The Bishop of the East must administer the 
affairs of the East only. The privileges that were 
assigned to the Church of Antioch by the Canons 
made at Nice being preserved, etc., etc., the Dioceses 
that were named were " the Asian," southwest part 
of Asia Minor, the " Pontic," the northeastern part 
of Asia Minor, and "Thrace," which was in Europe 
and included Greece, extending as far west as the 
Adriatic Sea. 

I have already referred to the fact that the word 
"Diocese" was used at that time in a sense quite 
different from our present use. What we now call 
a Diocese was then a Parish, and Parishes in the 
modern sense were unknown ; the order was (i) the 
Empire, (2) Dioceses, thirteen in number, (3) 



AND THE CAXOXS OF THE CHURCH. 43 

Provinces, of which there were one hundred and 
eighteen, varying from five to seventeen in each Dio- 
cese and (4) Parishes (now Dioceses) the number 
of which in each Province we have no means of as- 
certaining. But of one thing we may be certain ; 
namely, that there were no districts or portion of 
of the Empire reckoned as a Province for ecclesias- 
tical purposes that had not three or more Dioceses 
in the modern sense of the word — each of them 
with a Bishop of its own in charge over it. 

In the Canon just cited (Const, ii.,) the word Dio- 
ceses is used as indicating the boundary or limits 
within which the Bishops referred to were to confine 
their jurisdiction and the exercise of their authority. 
But there are, in reality, no political divisions of the 
earth's surface in our day that coincide with the old 
Dioceses. In some respects the several States and 
Territories of our country correspond with the Dio- 
ceses of the Roman Empire. But in others, the 
separate Nations of the world, as England, France, 
Spain, Italy, etc., etc., correspond more nearly to the 
older sub-divisions. 

But in any case, there are three of the thirteen of 
the Dioceses mentioned by name, for which a law was 
passed to the effect that the Bishop — that is the Arch- 
bishop, or Metropolitan, or Patriarch, rather of each 
of those sub-divisions of the Church — might have ex- 
clusive jurisdiction and control in his Diocese, so far 
as the peculiar duties of his office were concerned, and 



44 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



that he must confine himself "to that field. Of course, 
therefore, the Bishop of Rome was excluded from 
all the " Dioceses," except his own. 

The next Canon (iii.) is important and sig- 
nificant. It reads, " The Bishop of Constantinople 
shall have the precedence of honor after the Bishop 
of Rome, because Const ajitinople is new Rome." 

I have underscored and italicised the words " pre- 
cedence of honor " because they deserve a moment's 
notice in passing. 

In the earliest ages — the days of the Apostles — 
until after the destruction of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 
itself was regarded as the Mother Church, with the 
" primacy of honor." After that came Antioch un- 
til the time of Pantsenus, about A. D. 180, when Alex- 
andria succeeded to that honor in the Church's esti- 
mation. 

But when the time for General Councils came, for 
the settling of matters that pertain to and concern 
the whole Church of Christ — it became neccessary 
to name some order in which the Bishops of the 
whole Church should take precedence. And in ref- 
erence to this matter, the first place was given to the 
Bishop of Rome, and the second to the Bishop of 
Constantinople ; Alexandria and Antioch following 
in the order just named. Jerusalem had been in- 
significant since the destruction of the city by Titus, 
and Moscow in Russia was not as yet recognised — 
in fact the Russians had not been converted. 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 



45 



Some precedency, however, became neccessary so 
soon as there were to be Councils at all. It was so 
then and is so now in every branch of the Church. 
Thus, in England, in Canterbury, we have the order: 
the Bishops of Canterbury, London, Winchester, and 
so on. In York we have York, Durham, Carlisle, and 
so on. 

But in this country the order of seniority — 
" precedency of honor," as the Canon calls it — is de- 
termined not by the sees which the Bishops hold, 
but by seniority in the order or date of their conse- 
cration. Hence those in this country who have held 
" the precedency " are Seabury, of Connecticut, 
1784-1796; White, of Pennsylvania, 1796-1836; 
Griswold, of Massachusetts, 1836- 1842; Chase, of 
Illinois, 1842-1852 ; Brownell, of Connecticut, 1852- 
1865; Hopkins, of Vermont, 1865-1868; Smith, of 
Kentucky, 1868-1884; Lee, of Delaware, 1884-1887, 
and now Williams, of Connecticut. In this respect 
we follow the example of the ancient Church in Af- 
rica, rather than any other of the ancient branches 
of the Church of whose order in this respect we have 
any knowledge. 

(1) But what was thus given to the Bishop of 
Rome was merely " the precedency " or the primacy 
of honor — the respect and honor due to the oldest 
man, and not authority. The expression neither 
implied nor gave any more than the precedency which 
we give to our senior Bishops, over the other Dio- 



46 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

ceses and Bishops in our National Church of this 
country. The word is presbeia, from presbus, an old 
man, and denotes the honor of precedence, which we 
always give to age — if only it happens to be accom- 
panied with modesty and wisdom. 

(2) The second point to be noted in the Canon is 
the reason assigned for the honor thus conferred — 
and note it is the honor {time) and nothing else. The 
reason assigned is that it is Rome, and the second 
place is assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople, 
" because that is new Rome ; that is Rome was the 
old seat of the empire — the old empire in the 
West, and Constantinople had become now the seat 
of the new empire — or the empire in the East. 

(3) And we note the fact as pertinent to our 
present purpose, that there is no mention of St. 
Peter and no obvious reference to him in this con- 
nection. It is neither said nor implied that he was in 
any sense the first or the chief of the Apostles — 
that the Bishop of Rome was in any sense his suc- 
cessor any more or in any other sense than all the 
other Bishops were his successors. There is even no 
intimation in this Canon, or in the other Canons at all, 
that Peter was ever at Rome for any purpose what- 
ever. 

The Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451,) gives em- 
phasis to this view. In Canon xxviii.it says: "The 
Fathers properly gave the Primacy of honor to the 
throne of the elder Rome, because that was the im- 
perial city '." 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 



47 



Here are both the fact and the reason for it. The 
Fathers gave the precedence or primacy, and be- 
cause of the dignity of the city in which the Bish- 
op's See — throne they called it — was situated. The 
Fathers gave it. Not a word about what our Lord 
said to Peter or the Rock. Not a word about his 
having any primacy or precedency among the 
Apostles. Not a word about Rome's being the See 
of St. Peter. Not a word about Peter at all ; not 
even a mention or a reference to his name. 

And, in fact, I doubt very much if the Fathers in 
the eastern parts or Provinces of the Church espe- 
cially, knew or had heard, or even thought of St. 
Peter as having so much as been at Rome at all. 

We have no account in the Scriptures of St. 
Peter's having been at Rome. In fact, we hear but 
very little about him after the Council at Jerusalem 
(Acts xv., A. D. 48 or 50). The first mention we 
have of his name in connection with Rome is, so far 
as I know, in the writings of Western men, as Caius, 
of Rome ; Irenseus, of Lyons, and Tertullian, of 
Carthage, in the latter part of the second century 
and in the beginning of the third. And from that 
time onward, the connection of his name and his 
martyrdom with Rome grew apace. 

But it was a Western, a local, tradition in its origin 
and influence. The Eastern Fathers, while giving, 
as we have seen, the precedence, the Primacy of 
honor to the Bishop of Rome, did it because Rome 



48 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

was the ancient imperial city and from no regard 01 
respect for its having been the scene of St. Peter's 
labors or martyrdom for the cause of Christ— even 
if they knew or believed it to be so. 

III. The third General council was held at Ephe- 
sus, A. D. 431, and was attended by about two hun- 
dred Bishops. 

The Canon that chiefly concerns our present sub- 
ject is the viiith, It seems from the Canon that several 
Bishops of the Island of Cyprus had complained 
that other Bishops — especially the Bishop of Anti- 
och — had interfered with their rights by ordaining 
Clergy in Cyprus, contrary to the laws of the 
Church " and the Canons of the Holy Fathers." 
Then, re-enacting the laws already passed, the Coun- 
cil enacts that "the Canons of the Holy Fathers and 
ancient customs " shall prevail. They declare that 
these Canons and Customs must be observed. " The 
same rules shall be observed in all the other Dio- 
ceses — and the Provinces — note the addition, in 
Provinces as well as in the Dioceses, or as we should 
now say, the Nations, "in the Provinces every- 
where (no exception for either Rome or Constanti- 
nople,) so that no Bishops shall invade any other 
Province which has not heretofore and from the be- 
ginning been under the hand of himself or his pre- 
decessors." And the Canon closes with the words : 
" But if any one shall introduce any regulation 
contrary to what has now been defined, the whole 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 49 

Holy and ^Ecumenical Synod has decreed that it 
shall be of no effect. 

IV. The next General Council was that of Chalce- 
don, A. D. 451, one hundred and twenty-six years 
after that of Nice. It was the most largely attended 
of any, having had about six hundred and thirty 
Bishops present. 

It began by recognizing the creed of Nice of the 
318 " Holy Fathers," with the addition made at 
Constantinople by the 150 " Holy Fathers." 

It then proceeds to say, (Can. i,,) " We have 
thought it right that the Canons which have been 
issued by the Holy Fathers, in each Synod up to 
the present time, should continue in force." Besides 
the three General Councils already named, there 
had been five local or Provincial Councils held, 
whose Canons had been collected into a code, 
namely Ancyra, in Gallatia, A. D. 315 ; Neocozesarea, 
in Pontus, A. D. 315 ; Gangra, in Paphlagonia, A. 
D. 325 ; Antioch, A. D. 341, and Laodicea, (prob- 
ably) A. D. 365. 

But be that as it may, these Canons have been 
generally received as endorsed and adopted by the 
Church. The Council of Antioch, 341, one hundred 
and ten years before that of Chalcedon, and only 
sixteen years after that of Nice, passed some Canons 
which are quite to our purpose. 

1. The ix. Canon provides that the Bishops "in 
every Province — not Diocese in the old sense — but in 



So 



7 BE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



every Province, must acknowledge him who presides 
over the Metropolis (seat of government of the 
Province) and who is to take care of the Province. 
Each Bishop is to have authority over his own 
Parish (Diocese in the modern sense) and to admin- 
ister it, and to make provision for all the district (or 
country) which is under his city; to ordain Presby- 
ters and Deacons, and to determine every thing 
with his judgment (or discretion) ; but let him not 
attempt to do anything further without the Bishop 
of the Metropolis/' 

Canon xiii. of Antioch, reads : " Let no Bishop 
dare to pass from one Province to another and 
ordain any person in the Churches to the dignity of 
officiating ; unless he comes with a written invita- 
tion from the Metropolitan and the other Bishops 
of the country into which he goes." 

Canon xv. enacts that if any Bishop is charged 
with any offense, and that sentence is pronounced 
unanimously by the Bishops of the Province, " he 
is not to be judged by any others, but the unanimous 
sentence of the Bishops of the Province shall re- 
main established. " 

Canon xxii. is about the same as the xiii. It 
reads : " A Bishop must not enter into another 
city (Diocese in our sense,) which is not subject to 
him, nor into a District which does not belong to 
him, to ordain anyone, nor to appoint a Presbyter 
or Deacon in places subject to another Bishop, un- 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 



5* 



less with the consent of the proper Bishop of the 
District." 

Canon xxiii. says : " A Bishop is not allowed to 
appoint another in his stead, even at the close of 
his life." 

2. To return to the Council of Chalcedon. It 
passed thirty Canons. The x. provides that " No 
clergymen shall be on the list of the Church of two 
cities at the same time." The xvii. Canon reads in 
part, "the rural and country Parishes, (probably 
Dioceses in the modern sense,) in any Province 
must continue without disturbance under the Bish- 
ops who have had possession of them, particularly 
if they have had them under their management for 
the space of thirty years without dispute." 

But the Canon adds : " If, however, there has 
been or shall be any dispute among them, those who 
say that they are injured may move the matter 'before 
the Synod of the Province." But more emphatic 
still: "But if any one has been wronged by Jus 
Metropolitan, lie is to be judged by the throne of 
Constantinople, as has been before said." And 
finally: "If any city has been newly erected by 
Royal (competent, we say) Authority (into a Me- 
tropolis), or shall hereafter be so erected, let the 
order of the ecclesiastical Parishes (Dioceses) follow 
the political organization." 

The xix. Canon recognizes the fact that in some 
of the Provinces the Synods — two in each year 



52 



7 HE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



ordered by the Council of Nice — were not held ; re^ 
enacts the Canon, and declares " that in every Prov^ 
ince the Bishops shall meet together twice in every 
year, at the place which the Bishop of the Metrop- 
olis may approve, and settle whatever matters may 
have arisen." 

There is no reference or allusion to any authority 
out of the Province, and none over it except its 
Synod. And any Bishop not prevented by sickness 
or other infirmity, who does not attend these semi- 
annual Synods or Conventions, is to be " reproved 
in a brotherly manner." 

But the most important of all these Canons is the 
xxviii. It says, as I have already quoted it as say- 
ing, that " the Fathers properly gave the Primacy 
(of honor) to the throne of elder Rome, because 
that was the imperial city. And the 150 most re- 
ligious Bishops (at Constantinople), being moved 
with the same purpose, gave equal privileges to the 
most holy throne of New Rome, judging, with 
reason, that the city which was honored with the 
Sovereignty and Senate, and which enjoys equal 
privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be 
magnified like her in ecclesiastical matters, being 
the second after her. 

But most of all, this Council decreed that the Metro- 
politan of the Dioceses (in the old sense) of Pontus, 
in the northeast corner of Asia Minor; Asia, south- 
west corner of Asia Minor, and Thrace, southeast 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH 



53 



corner of Europe, including Greece, should be or- 
dained by the Bishop of Constantinople. And also 
that the Bishops, — in the Missionary regions, as we 
should call them, — which were outside of the 
Roman Empire and in no one of its Provinces, 
should be ordained by and under the jurisdiction, 
not the Bishop of Rome, but by "the above men- 
tioned most holy throne of the most Holy Church 
of Constantinople." 

3. At this Council of Chalcedon we find, for the 
first time in the Canons, a reference to an order of 
Bishops above the Metropolitans, called Exarchs 
or Patriarchs. Something like it, in fact, though 
without the name Exarch or Patriarch, seems to have 
been referred to in Can. vi. of Nice, A. D. 325. It 
speaks of the Bishop of Alexandria as having 
authority over several Provinces, as Egypt, Libya 
and Pentapolis; of the Bishop of Rome as having a 
similar authority over the cities and Provinces that 
were in the immediate neighborhood of Rome. It 
also mentions the Bishop of Antioch as having sim- 
ilar oversight or authority over several Provinces in 
the East. But it adds, in immediate connection, in 
fact: " Let ancient customs prevail," andthese an- 
cient " privileges are to be preserved to the Churches 
in all the Provinces," as well as in the three Patri- 
archates that have been named. 

But the ix. Canon of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, 
orders that if a Bishop or Clergyman shall have any 



54 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



misunderstanding with the Metropolitan of the 
Province (that is, the Archbishop that was immedi- 
ately over him), he may have recourse or appeal to 
the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the 
Imperial city, Constantinople, and there let the 
matter be decided." The same provison was re- 
peated in about the same terms in the xvii. Canon. 

All these references to the Exarchs or Patriarchs 
are in immediate connection with the law that the 
rights, the customary rights, of the Parishes (Dio- 
ceses, we now call them), shall be preserved invio- 
lable, and that all questions of doctrine or discipline 
arising in any Parish or Province shall be settled by 
the Archbishops or the Synods of the Province, ex- 
cept in the case specified — when the dispute or 
quarrel was with the Archbishop himself — and in 
that case there lay the right to appeal to the Patri- 
arch of the Diocese, if there was one, and if not, to 
the Bishop of Constantinople. 

But the word Exarch, or Patriarch, appears now 
for the first time in the Canons. And while four of 
them are named as equals, (Antioch, Alexandria, 
Rome and Constantinople), no mention is made of 
any other, although the language used is such as to 
imply that there were, or, at least, might be others — 
one in each of the thirteen larger sub-divisions of 
the Empire, called Dioceses. 

There was afterwards set up a claim to such an 
independent Patriarchate for some city in France. 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH 



55 



But there never was any in North Africa or in Eng- 
land. 

VI. There is one other point in the doings of 
these early Councils, which, though not very directly 
connected with my general purpose, I will turn 
aside for a moment to consider. 

It will be remembered that the primary object for 
which these Councils were called together was to 
ascertain and set forth, with authority, the funda- 
mental facts and doctrines of the Faith as it had 
been always held and ought always to be held and 
taught throughout the whole Church and through- 
out all time. 

For this purpose, as I have said, the Council of 
Nice enlarged the first and second Articles of the 
Creed which was then in general use throughout the 
whole Church, though differing slightly in its terms 
and forms. This Council enlarged the first Article 
so as to make it declare, as against the Gnostics, 
that God is the one Creator of all things visible and 
invisible. And the second Article was so enlarged 
so as to declare against the Arians — the Divinity of 
Christ, as implied in His Sonship. 

The Council at Constantinople enlarged the third 
Artcle, with a regard to a Holy Ghost, so as to de- 
clare against the Macedonians who denied His per- 
sonality. 

After this, each of the Councils, claiming to be 
General Councils and acting for the whole Church, 



56 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



expressly recognized the Faith or Creed thus set 
forth as the one Creed that ought to be professed by 
all Christians. 

But the Council of Ephesus, the next that was 
held after that of Constantinople, enacted that " no 
person shall be allowed to bring forward, to write or 
to compose any other Creed." (Can. vi.) And the 
Council of Chalcedon repeated and emphasized the 
same prohibition in their Encyclical letter. They 
say : " These things having been expressed with 
the utmost accuracy and attention, the Holy 
Ecumenical Synod has decreed that it shall not be 
lawful for any one to bring forward, to write, com- 
pose or devise, or teach men any other Creed. And 
those who shall dare to compose any other Creed, or 
to bring forward or teach or deliver any other Creed, 
to those who are desirous of turning to the acknowl- 
edgement of the truth from heathenism, Judaism or 
any heresy whatever, if they are Bishops or of the 
Clergy, shall be deposed, but if they are Monks or 
Laymen they shall be anathematised" or excommu- 
nicated. 

VII. I believe I have now quoted all that there is 
jn these Canons of the General Councils and in the 
Canons that have been accepted by the Church, 
that relate to or have any important bearing on the 
subject before us — The Papal Supremacy or the Pro- 
vincial system in the Church — except the following 
passages which I cite from what are called the Apos- 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 



57 



tolic Canons. As J have said, nobody knows when, 
where, or by whom they were passed, but they were 
in existence and in force before the council at Nice 
and are understood to have been recognized as in 
force by the general Councils under the title k< An- 
cient Customs or Canons." 

I will cite but a few passages from them. 

Canon xiv. forbids any Bishop " to leave his own 
Parish (Diocese) and pass over into another" to per- 
form any Episcopal function. 

Can. xxxiv. The Bishops of any nation must 
acknowledge him who is first among them and ac- 
cept him as their head and do nothing of conse- 
quence without his consent. 

The word "nation" here is worthy of notice. It 
hardly corresponds to any now in use. The word 
that most nearly corresponds to it is perhaps "race." 
It is the same word as is translated in the New Tes- 
tament "Gentiles" as in contrast with Jews. As 
" the people of Samaria," (Acts viii-9). " All na- 
tions of men .... to dwell on the face of the earth 
(Acts xvii 26). 

This and a few other facts and phrases occur- 
ring in these Canons seem to suggest that the Canons 
were adopted before the sub-divisions of the Empire 
into Dioceses to which I have referred, was adopted, 
or had come into general use. 

The xxxvii. reads " Let there be a meeting of the 
Bishops twice a year and let them examine among 



5o 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 



themselves (or one-another) concerning the doctrines 
(dogmata) of piety, religion or a godly life (eusebia). 
and let them settle the ecclesiastical controversies or 
questions that have arisen. 

The xxxix. Canon reads, " Let not the Presbyters 
or Deacons do anything without the knowledge (or 
consent) (gnome) of his Bishop, for he it is who is 
entrusted with the people of the Lord, and who 
must give account of their souls." 

I think we have now before us all of any import- 
ance, both from the Holy Scriptures and from the 
Ancient Canon Law of the Church, that bears very 
directly on the question of Papal Supremecy, 

It will be noticed that I have taken account of those 
Councils only which have been either recognised 
as General Councils, or were recognised by the Gen- 
eral Councils and therefore virtually included among 
their acts. 

Provincial Councils in the West frequently au- 
thorized appeals to the Bishops of Rome, not only 
because that was the imperial See, but also because 
it was the only one in the west that had been founded 
by an Apostle, or as was claimed, at a later date, be- 
cause it had been founded by St. Peter and thus be- 
came the chair of St. Peter. These Councils and their 
Canons, however, I have not thought it worth while 
to notice in this place. The testimonies from the 
Canons, like that from the Holy Scriptures, is of two 
kinds. 



AND THE CAXOXS OF THE CHURCH. 



59 



I. Negative, we find no recognition of the Bish- 
ops of Rome as in any way, or any sense the suc- 
cessor of St. Peter; no proof from this source that 
St. Peter was ever at Rome or that he had any 
supremacy or superiority over the rest of the Apos- 
tles or that he gave it to any successor, if he had- 

2. It is affirmative in a two-fold manner, (a) by 
expressly limiting the Bishops of Rome, as it did 
those of Antioch and Alexandria, to their own special 
field, Diocese or Province. This declaration we 
saw was put forth at Nice and reiterated at nearly 
all the Councils afterwards (b), by providing that 
all that the Bishop of Rome, or any other Bishop 
could do should be done by some other Bishop or 
Synod — " It is a maxim of Law that in the granting 
of power and franchise — the mention of one is the 
exclusion of all others." And it is a principle of com- 
mon sense as well as the maxim of law. 

The Bishops of Rome did not attend any one 
of the General Councils, and therefore had no oppor- 
tunity, and gave us no opportunity to see or to 
judge what and how much was implied in " the 
precedency of honor " that " the Holy Fathers" 
gave him. And the world has had no opportunity 
to see any manifestation of it or to judge from any- 
thing besides the mere words that were used in the 
Canons which I have quoted, what it was and how 
much it amounted to. 

The Councils did indeed notify him, as they did like- 



6o THE PAPAL SUPREMACY 

wise all other Metropolitans, of what they had done, 
but they did not mention him in their resolutions 
giving the notices. Least of all did they submit 
their action to him for approval or disapproval. 
Their language is " each Metropolitan having per- 
mission to take a copy of the things now transacted for 
his own security." (Canon Ephesus A. D. 431, viii.) 
The report of the doings (Canons) at Ephesus was 
addressed " to the Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons 
and the people in every Province." No mention of 
or allusion to the Bishop of Rome whatever. 

It will be observed that I cite these Canons chiefly 
as testimony and scarcely as authority. They show 
unquestionably what was. And it will be a matter 
of doubt and of varying opinions how far they show 
us what must be in all time to come. 

And they show us beyond a doubt: 

1. That the Bishops of Rome had no Primacy or 
Supremacy out of the Province or "Diocese" in their 
sense of the word. 

2. That each Province or Nation had its Church 
with a Synod which was regarded as entirely compe- 
tent for all the purposes of Doctrine, Discipline or 
Worship that could come before it or at all arise 
needing to be settled. 

And yet there was always the most profound re- 
spect for the authority of the General Councils duly 
called and properly held. I presume therefore that 
we have a right to regard this respect and deference 



AND THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 6 1 

for such authority as always implied and acted upon. 
In all cases the Councils speak with the utmost re- 
spect and with the most profound regard for what- 
ever had been done by such a General Council/whether 
by General Councils in which the whole Church was 
represented, or whose Canons and determinations 
were acquiesced in and accepted by the whole Church ; 
or, as in the case of " the Apostolic Canons" and the 
five Provincial Councils, Ancyra, Neocsesarca, Gangra, 
Antioch and Laodicea, which had been accepted, 
adopted and ratified by the General Councils. These 
General Councils, including the 2d and 3d of Con- 
stantinople, ranged, as we have seen, from A. D. 325 
to A. D. 630, a period of about three hundred and 
fifty-five years, and were composed of Bishops as- 
sembled from all parts of the Church ranging in num- 
bers from 150 to 680, as follows: Nice A. D. 325, 
three hundred and eighteen ; 1st, at Constantinople, 
A. D. 381, one hundred and fifty; Ephesus, A. D. 
431, two hundred; Chalcedon, A. D. 451, six hun- 
dred and thirty; 2d, Constantinople, A. D. 553, one 
hundred and sixty-five ; 3d, Constantinople, A. D. 
680, one hundred and seventy. 

If, now, any statement could be cited from a pri- 
vate authority, Father or heretic, that is contrary or 
contradictory to the testimonies of these Councils, it 
can be regarded only as the expression of a private, 
personal opinion, but I know of hone. 



CHAPTER III. 

ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 

I think we have seen sufficiently in the two preced- 
ing chapters that : 

(i) The Holy Scriptures not only furnish no evi- 
dence of any authority of St. Peter over the rest of 
the Apostles, and none over the Church, except such 
as was common to all the Apostles and possessed 
alike by them all — but also that Our Lord made 
ample provision for the settlement of all cases and 
questions that could arise and call for or justify the 
exercise of Church authority without any interfer- 
ence of the Bishops of Rome or any other See out- 
side of the proper Provincial or, at least, Patriarchial 
jurisdiction that belonged to each one by himself. 

And I think we have found, too, in the Holy 
Scriptures, the germ of the Provincial system, or a 
system of National Churches, each totally autono- 
mous and independent of each and all others, acting 
separately, and not as General Councils. 

(2) I think, too, that we have most abundant 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 



63 



evidence in the Canons of the early Church that 
there was, neither in fact nor in theory, any Suprem- 
acy of the Bishops of Rome over the other Patri- 
archates or National Churches ; and also that most 
stringent Laws and Canons were passed for the ex- 
press purpose of preventing any such consolidation 
or unification of the Patriarchates and National 
Churches as would inevitably result from the claims 
that were even then put forth by the Bishops of 
Antioch, of Alexandria, of Constantinople, and last 
in the order of time but most pretentious of all — 
Rome itself. 

Eusebius, who lived at the time of the Council 
of Nice (A. D. 325), and wrote a history of the 
Church from its origin to the A. D. 324, and to 
whom we are indebted more than to all other sources 
put together for our knowledge of the early history 
of the Church, says but very little about St. Peter 
or the Church of Rome. In B., ii., chap, xxv, he 
speaks of the report that St. Peter was crucified at 
Rome, and apparently believes it. 

But in chap, i., Book iii., he intimates that but 
very little is known as to the places where the 
Apostles preached. " Thomas," he says, " accord- 
ing to tradition, received Parthia as his allotted re- 
gion, Andrew received Scythia, John, Asia," (that is 
the southwest corner of Asia Minor,) " where, after 
continuing some time, he died at Ephesus. Peter 
appears to have preached through Pontus, (i. e. the 



6 4 



ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 



northeast corner of Asia Minor), to the Jews that 
were scattered abroad, who also finally came to 
Rome and was crucified." And then he adds, 
" Why should we speak of Paul spreading the Gos- 
pel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum and finally 
suffering martyrdom at Rome under Nero?" 

Then, in the next chapter, he says : " After the 
martyrdom of Paul and Peter," (Paul's name is al- 
ways mentioned first,) " Linus was the first that re- 
ceived the Episcopate at Rome. Paul also men- 
tioned, in his Epistles from Rome to Timothy, . . 
. . Eubulus, Pudens, Linus and Claudia." 

And this is all that he knows or, at least, all that 
he cares to say, of St. Peter that has any bear- 
ing whatever on our present subject. 

Now, this silence of Eusebius, one to whom, as I 
stated, we are more indebted than to all other writers 
for our knowledge of the history of the Church up to 
the beginning of the fourth century, shows most 
clearly that he knows nothing of a Primacy, of St. 
Peter, or any Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome. 
And he had all the documents befoie him. This 
omission, if the modern claims are well founded, is 
something worse than " the Tragedy of Hamlet with 
the part of Hamlet left out." 

We have seen that the Canons — those of Nice, 
vi., and those of Ephesus, viii., seem to recognize as 
already existing certain officers which were after- 
wards called Exarchs or Patriarchs. The name Ex- 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 



65 



arch, however, does not occur in the Canons until 
the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. And then in 
two of its Canons, ix. and xvii., it provides that in all 
cases of discipline which cannot, for a reason there 
given, be settled in the Province, appeal may be 
made to the Exarch or Patriarch, or, as a last resort, 
to the Bishop of Constantinople, not at all to Rome. 

As we see, there was not only no recognition of the 
Papal Supremacy, but no provision or allowance for 
the Bishop of Rome's interfering with any affairs 
outside of his Province or Diocese, at least, or allow- 
ing any appeal to him in regard to any matter by 
any person outside of his recognized jurisdiction, 
thus circumscribed ; any appeal, I say, for anything 
more than an opinion, such as might be asked by 
anybody of any person whom he regarded as wiser 
than himself, or whose opinion he thought to be 
worth having. 

And we must remember, that the Bishop of Rome 
was not the only one of the early Bishops, nor, in 
fact, the first of them, to make an effort to extend 
his influence and jurisdiction beyond the proper ter- 
ritory of his Diocese or Province. The first of the 
General Councils, that of Nice, A. D. 325, had occa- 
sion to assert that the " Ancient Canons, or customs" 
should be allowed to prevail and the Bishops of the 
ancient Sees, Antioch and Alexandria, are specially 
mentioned in the warning against extending their 
claims. 



66 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 

Rome is mentioned, but from the way in which it 
is spoken of it would seem that the Bishops of that 
See had not yet done anything that called for re 
buke. (See Can. vi.) 

Again, in Can. ii. of Constantinople, A. D. 381, 
the like evil required correcting. And here, too, we 
have specially the Bishops of Antioch and Al- 
exandria mentioned by name; but the law is made 
universal, so as to include " all the Dioceses every- 
where." And it was this Council that expressly gave 
the Bishop of Rome, no authority or jurisdiction 
beyond the " Diocese" of Rome, but a precedency 
of honor overall others, and next to him, the Bish- 
op of Constantinople. (Can. iii.) 

At the Council at Ephesus (A. D. 431,) there was 
still a complaint of the Bishop of Antioch as going 
beyond his proper sphere, his " Diocese," performing 
ordinations in Cyprus and the Council not only re- 
peated the prohibition of the earlier Councils, 
but it declared that if any regulation contrary to 
what has now been declared, shall be made, it shall 
be of no effect. The regulation referred to could, of 
course, be nothing else or other than some rule, or 
canon, that might be passed by a Provincial Synod, 
or what claims to be one. 

But at a later period, say about A. D. 450, 
the claims of Rome had come into conspicuous no- 
toriety. Antioch and Alexandria disappeared from 
the contest, and Rome and Constantinople were now 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 



6 7 



the two rivals, and virtually they were from this time 
onward, the only two. 

The first claim of any Bishop of Rome to be suc- 
cessor of St. Peter and to have any authority over 
any part of the Church except his own Province of 
Rome — Rome the city and its suburbs — was put 
forth by Scricius, who became Bishop of Rome A. 
D. 384. He issued a " Decree" concerning matters 
of discipline, to the Church in Spain. This was 
more than three hundred years after the death of St. 
Peter. It was about sixty years after the first Gen- 
eral Council of Nice, just about the time that the 
Council of Constantinople gave the Bishops of Rome 
a precedency of honor on account of the dignity of 
the city, and about sixty years before the rivalry be- 
tween Rome and Constantinople assumed its final 
form. 

Doubtless the Fathers often spoke in high terms 
of the Bishops of Rome, even calling them Popes, 
and most Holy Popes. But " pope" was then a title 
that was freely given to any Bishop. And the Bish- 
ops of Carthage, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch 
were freely and frequently called Popes, and even 
"most Holy Popes." 

But what could be the value of the opinion or 
testimony of any one Father, or even several of 
them, as either expressing an opinion as to what the 
statements in Holy Scriptures really meant, or as a 
statement as to what was the fact in regard to any 



6$ ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 

law, custom, or usage of the age, when contrasted 
with the Canons of the Church which I have quoted ? 
Here we have at Nice a body of three hundred and 
eighteen Fathers testifying to the facts in the case. 
At Constantinople we have one hundred and fifty ; 
at Ephesus, more than a hundred years after the 
Council at Nice, v/e have two hundred, and at Chal- 
cedon, still later, six hundred and thirty. To a large 
extent there must have been different men in each 
of the Councils. They bore testimony to what they 
knew to be the facts in the case. They legislated in 
accordance to what they believed to be the meaning 
of Holy Scripture. And, more than that, they con- 
stantly assure us that they were legislating in ac- 
cordance with what had always been held and ob- 
served in the Church. 

And it will be considered, also, that the first of 
these Councils, that of Nice, was held only about 
twelve or fifteen years after the conversion of Con- 
stantine, and the cessation of persecutions. 
Many of the " Holy Fathers," therefore, who assem- 
bled on that occasion, must have had on their bodies 
the marks of the sufferings they had endured. We 
are told that some of them had lost a hand, others 
one of their legs, and others had had one of 
their eyes put out, or, possibly, their tongues muti- 
lated. They must have been in earnest and had 
given proof of their earnestness such as we, in these 
modern times, have had no occasion to show. 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. fig 

I. I think it will be well, before we go farther 
with our general subject, to pause a moment and 
consider one other point in the matter of the Primi- 
tive Church organization. We have seen that they 
knew nothing of any Supremacy or Primacy of the 
Bishop of Rome over the whole Church, and that 
they had the Provincial System ; that they attached 
the utmost importance to it and never doubted for 
a moment its harmony at least with the divine appoints 
ments and the commands, if, indeed, it were not an 
undisputable part of those things, which our Lord 
gave them in charge during the great forty days, for 
all nations of which they were to make disciples. They 
certainly do not appear to have had any doubt that 
the Church would be perpetual. Many of their 
most explicit and emphatic commands, or Canons, 
had for their object nothing else but the perpetua- 
tion of the system, and the preservation of the 
independence of each Province, its Bishops and its 
Synods, from any and all encroachments save and 
excepting only the appeal in certain cases to the 
Patriarch of the Diocese or Nation, or, in any neces- 
sary alternative, to the Bishop of Constantinople. 

But the authors of these Canons had no idea or 
thought of more than one Church in a Parish, or 
Province, or Diocese, that could be regarded as 
legitimate and having right to jurisdiction and the 
administration of the Sacraments. Or, to put this 
into the terms of modern use, they had no idea that 



7o 



ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 



there could be more than one Church in a Diocese, 
Province, or a Nation, that could be regarded as a 
legitimate Church or branch of the Church of Christ. 
In the estimation of those early days, the doc- 
trine of One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism for the 
remission of sins was not only fundamental, but it 
seems to have been always uppermost in their 
minds. Hence, the idea of two or more churches, 
not in communion, or, at least, with separate organ- 
izations, in the same community, seems not to have 
occurred to them. If the people of the place had 
One Faith there was no reason why they should not 
have One Baptism and be in One Church or Com- 
munion. And if they were not so, it was, in their 
estimation, a clear case of heresy, schism, or anti- 
Christ, or all of them together, on the part of those 
who had introduced the heresy, or led off in the 
secession. 

All these words occur — " schism," or the " separ- 
ating of themselves," and "anti-Christ" — in Holy 
Scripture ; and all of them are used to indicate 
some falling away, or, rather, some form and man- 
ner of falling away, not only from the truth which 
was taught in the Church and by its Ministers, but 
also from the Church itself, though in some cases, 
as it' would appear, those that seceded held the true 
Faith. 

We rest, then, on the testimony of " the Church" 
which Christ founded, the Church at large and as one 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. y l 

Body acting in its collective capacity. They, or 
rather it, did allow to the Bishops of Rome a "prece- 
dency or priority of honor " on account of its " higher 
principality ;" but no Supremacy or Primacy, even, 
over the whole Church, on account of St. Peter or 
on any other account. 

II. I think, then, that we can come to no other 
conclusion than that the Papal Supremacy not only 
has no foundation in the Holy Scriptures or the Can- 
ons and authentic teachings of the early Church, 
down, at least, to the third Council of Constantino- 
ple, the sixth of the Universal or General Councils 
A. D. 680, and the last that has been accepted as 
Universal, or having the authority of a General 
Council, by all the branches of the Primitive Church, 
and that the Church as it then existed, all the 
branches, Provinces or National Churches that were 
then in existence were regarded as belonging to, 
included in, and making up the One Holy Catholic 
Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

And it seems to me, on the other hand, that the 
Provincial system is very distinctly outlined, set forth, 
as in practice and provided for, for all time and all 
nations. 

I have already quoted the famous passage, Matt, 
xviii. 15-21. It was addressed, doubtless, to " the 
disciples." But, then, this word may denote all the 
believers, or only the chosen twelve, who were 
Apostles. I think we cannot suppose it to have been 



72 



ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 



intended for all believers ; for in that case, any " two 
or three" of them may organize themselves into a 
Church not only so as to have the one Lord with them 
for purposes of prayer and worship, but also extensive 
powers for discipline, so that whatever they should 
agree upon, " two or three of them" would have 
divine authority, "be bound in heaven," and also 
powers of discipline, so that whoever would not ac- 
cept their rules " agreed upon " and submit to their 
discipline, they might excommunicate and cause 
to be to them as no Christian, but, rather, as 
"a heathen man and a publican" was to the Jews; 
one, in fact, with whom they would have no inter- 
course. Surely, this interpretation of the passage 
is too monstrous and absurd to be maintained or ac- 
cepted by any one. 

In the only other view possible, we must regard 
the passage as addressed to the Twelve ; and then 
it becomes the " act of incorporation," so to call it, 
of the Provincial System. Whenever two or three 
of the Apostles, or their successors, might be assem- 
bled for such purposes, there would be a Branch of 
the Church, competent for all the purposes of de- 
termining upon the doctrines to be taught and the 
rules of discipline to be enforced. 

For we must remember that the Apostles were to 
*°go into all the world and preach the Gospel to 
every creature," (Mark xvi. J4,) "to teach all na- 
tions, baptising them and teaching them to observe, 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 



73 



not only to believe, but to observe all things that He 
had commanded them." And this mission, or com- 
mission, was not personal to them and to end with 
their lives, but the promise was : " I am with you 
always, even to the end of the world." (Matt, 
xxviii., 15-19.) 

III. In due time, about A. D. 40, if not before, 
the Apostles divided and went into different parts 
of the earth — the Provinces of the Roman Empire. 
And wherever one of them went he preached, made 
converts and baptised those who were ready to make 
a profession of the Faith in Christ, enter into the 
Covenant, and lead a new life, following the com- 
mandments of God, their Saviour. We see in the 
Scriptures, in the cases of Timothy and Titus, at 
least, others — uninspired men — -continuing the Apos- 
tles' work. If we look beyond the close of the In- 
spired Volume we find others who had been disciples 
of the original twelve, or, at least, some one of 
them, as Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc., continu- 
ing their work, not only of preaching the Gospel, 
but also of " edifying the Church," by administra- 
tion of Sacraments and the discipline which was 
necessary to preserve the correctness of the Faith 
once delivered to the Saints, and the purity and in- 
tegrity of the Church which they were building 
on " the One Foundation, other than which no man 
can lay." 

How early any "two or three" of them may have 



74 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 

begun after the Council of Jerusalem, about A. D. 
50 (Acts xv.), to form rules or Canons, we do not 
know. In those days Christianity was a religio 
ilicita — a religion not allowed to be publicly taught 
or professed, and for much of the time the Church 
was under actual persecution. In this state of things 
the gathering together of only as many as two or 
three for the purpose of holding a Synod or Coun- 
cil is not likely to have been an act of much notoriety 
or of any public record. 

But we have seen that there was a code of Canons 
or laws — commonly reckoned as eighty-five in num- 
ber, although the genuinenesss of the last thirty-five 
is doubted by some persons. 1 have remarked also 
that some of the earlier ones, at least, bear marks 
of having been adopted at a very early date in the 
history of the Church, and before many of the 
terms, phrases and usages that occur or are referred 
to in the Canons of Nice A. D. 325, had come into 
use. 

At any rate, these Canons, the first fifty of them, 
are older than the Council of Nice — were even old 
at that time and recognized as of authority. 

But at the time of the Council of Nice we find 
the Provincial System in full operation and recog- 
nized as a system or arrangement that might not be 
superseded or disturbed. The Council of Chalce- 
don (A. D. 451, Can. xvii.) went so far in the direc- 
tion of the perpetuation of the system as to declare 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 



7' 



that if any change should be made by the civil 
authorities in the boundaries, or the capitals of the 
Provinces, the divisions of the Church should not 
be abolished thereby nor its efficiency in holding 
Synods or Councils impaired, but, on the other 
hand, the order of the ecclesiastical Parishes (Dio- 
ceses in modern phraseology) should follow the 
political and public forms or boundaries. 

IV. If now we wonder, as well we may, how in 
spite of all this the power of the Bishop of Rome 
grew to the pretentious proportions which it 
had at the time of the Reformation, I will mention 
what I think may be regarded as the reasons and 
influences under five distinct heads, though I have no 
time to to develop them and point out all their force 
and influence. 

i. The first that I shall mention is the glory and 
glamour of Rome itself — the city of the world. 

We have seen that the General Councils gave the 
" precedence of honor," and whatever was implied in 
it, to the Bishop of Rome, especially on the ground 
that it was " the imperial city." St. Irenaeus also 
refers to this very fact or reason, " its greater prin- 
cipality:" it was the principal city of the world. 

But this was influence, and not authority, that was 
given in that way. And on that account Rome was, 
in the estimate of all the people, of the west at least, 
the one Empire of the World and the city of Rome 
was its capital. In their view, in theory if not in 



;6 



ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 



fact, the one Emperor who ruled all the World and 
hence, naturally enough, there grew up the idea that 
its Bishops should be at the head of all Bishops and 
have a sort of supervision and jurisdiction over the 
whole Church. The very name of President or Gov- 
ernor of a large State like New York or Pennsylva- 
nia carries more weight than the name of the 
Governor of a small State like Vermont or Dela- 
ware. The Bishop of New York or Maryland has 
no more power, indeed, but much greater influence 
in the Church at large, than the Bishop of a smaller 
See, like Easton or western Texas, whatever may 
be the respective wisdom and worth of the men. 

And such is the world, that this influence goes a 
great ways ; and is in effect authority to a very 
large extent in determining questions of opinion or 
in giving prestige to customs and usages. 

2. I gladly mention, in the second place, the 
soundness in the faith, and the practical wisdom, the 
sagacity, and good sense which characterized the 
early Bishops of Rome. 

As Jerusalem had been the seat of the develop- 
ment of the religion of the World, Greece its Phil- 
osophy, so Rome had been the centre of the devel- 
opment of its practical wisdom. In law and organ- 
ization, and in fact in everything that pertains to 
the organization and government of men, Rome 
was, facile princeps, altogether ahead of the rest of 
the ancient World. No man had a chance of sue- 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 



77 



cess there, except as a fool or a jester, who was not a 
practically wise and sagacious man. 

So, too, their Bishops. It is true, indeed, that up to 
about A. D. 600, that is, up to Gregory the Great 
(A. D. 590), very few of their Bishops, some sixty- 
five in all, had been Romans by birth and educa- 
tion. Most of them were Greeks. So far as we 
know, the first one of them that was a Roman by 
nature or Roman by descent was Victor, A. D. 190, 
and he appears to have been born and bred in 
Africa. Leo (the Great), A. D. 440-461, seems to 
have been the first of them all, who was thor- 
oughly a Roman by birth and education, and by the 
possession of the truly Roman spirit. He was de- 
scended from a Patrician family and had the true spirit 
of the city and the people that ruled and were des- 
tined to rule the world. His deputies, it was, who 
objected to the xxviii. Canon of the Council of 
Chalcedon — already referred to — although it was 
finally accepted afterwards as a part of the Law of 
the Church Universal, even by the Bishops of Rome 
themselves. 

And to this add the fact that most of the earlier 
Bishops of Rome for three hundred years, until the 
conversion of Constantine, and the famous decree of 
Milan, A. D. 313, in favor of the toleration of 
Christianity, some thirty odd in number, had died as 
martyrs to their faith. 

But as a general rule these Bishops were sound 



78 



ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 



in the Faith — only one or two of them having 
favored Pelagianism and other forms of heresy. 
And they had not only been sound in the faith in 
the judgment of the Church at large, east as well as 
west, but they had, moreover, in many cases stood 
firm when it required a good deal of firmness as 
well as courage to do so. 

And they were sound and practical in judgment, 
administered their offices well and with good discre- 
tion and executive ability. In this way, as well as 
in consequence of the greater dignity of their See, 
they commanded the respect of the world and ex- 
erted a widespread influence. 

(3) I name as the third element among the in- 
fluences that developed the growth of the influence 
and power of the Bishops of Rome, the state of 
civil affairs and their usefulness and great benefit to 
the Christians and the Church generally. 

From the first, the Christians at Rome seem to 
have been mostly converts from the Jews and the 
Gentile Greeks. Very few, if any, Roman citizens 
were included among the members of the Church. 
Hence the members of the Church, having no status 
as citizens in the Roman courts, used to appeal to 
the Bishop. 

Nor was this all. Often it happened that the 
Bishop could intercede for them with the civil 
authorities, securing their rights and protecting 
them against oppression. 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 



79 



Nor, again, was this all. After the removal of 
the seat of Empire — by the Emperor himself — first 
to Milan A. D. 285, and after that to Ravenna, 
the Bishop of Rome was about the only person or 
authority left in the city that could protect it and 
its inhabitants against the foreign enemies — the 
hordes of barbarians that were seeking to capture 
and devastate the city. Of this we have several 
very striking illustrations. Especially on several 
occasions the Bishop of Rome showed that he had 
more power and influence in defending the city and 
the people in it than even the Roman Army itself. 
See notably the case of Leo and Attila. 

(4) Once more. After the conversion of Con- 
stantine and the beginning of the interference of 
the Civil Powers in the affairs of the Church, with 
the pretence, not now of persecution, but rather as 
a matter of friendship and favor, it became common 
for any party, especially in the East, whom the Em- 
peror would not favor, to appeal to the Bishop of 
Rome. He was too influential to be neglected by 
any one who would continue to wield the sceptre, 
and while it is to be considered, and gladly do we 
concede the fact that the decisions were, for the 
most part in accordance with justice and right, 
they did always conduce to the growth of the Papal 
influence. And we soon find the Bishops of Rome 
claiming this right to be appealed to from all parts 
of the Church. 



gO ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 

($) But, finally, I feel obliged to mention another 
influence and one which was in some respects the 
most influential of all, and one which we cannot but 
condemn as almost unprecedented in its infamy. I 
refer to what are now known as the " forged De- 
cretals." 

As early as A. D. 419, a Bishop of Rome, Boni- 
face I., A. D. 418-422, had claimed the right to hear 
appeals from any part of the Church and sent to 
Carthage for the purpose of interfering with their 
affairs. He claimed, or his messengers did for him, 
certain Canons which, as they affirmed, had been 
passed at the Council of Nice A. D. 325. But on 
investigation it was found that there were no such 
Canons passed at the Council of Nice, and, of 
course, therefore, they were forgeries when claimed 
to have been passed at that Council. 

As another instance of the tricks and frauds in- 
vented by the advocates of the Papal Supremacy, I 
cite the case of Nicholas I. (A. D. 858-867.) He 
made an attempt to corrupt the reading of the 
Canon xvii. of Chalcedon so that it should give him 
the supremacy and right to appeal from the Whole 
Church. The Canon, as already cited, provides that 
in cases of controversy or dispute where the Metro- 
politan — the Archbishop of the Province — was in- 
volved so that neither he nor the Synod in the Prov- 
ince could be expected to do justice, there might be 
an appeal to the Exarch (Patriarch) " of the Diocese." 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 3 X 

But Nicholas proposed to make it read " the Patri- 
arch of the Diocese — in the plural. It was well 
understood that each of the thirteen Dioceses had, in 
fact, the right to have a Patriarch of its own. 
But the Patriarch of the Diocese — the one Patri- 
arch over them all, who could he be ? Of course, 
the Canon settled the matter. " If there was any- 
one such Patriarch, it was the Bishop of Constanti- 
nople." But he of Rome claimed the position for 
himself. 

This version of the "matter, involving as it did a 
forgery — that is, a conscious and intentional change 
of the text of the Canon for a purpose — the Pope 
Nicholas sent to the Eastern Emperor, to Charles 
the First, King and Emperor, (by title,) of the West 
and to the Bishops of France — who were at this 
time, as they had been for a long time, claiming to 
have a Patriarch of their own and for " the Diocese 
of France." 

It is both impossible and undesirable to go into 
details in this place and show all the special acts of 
fraud and forgery. 

This document, or these documents, are usually 
called the " forged Decretals." As decretals they are, 
a large part of them, or rather pretend to be, records 
and accounts of some decree or decision of a ques- 
tion by the Bishop of Rome, which not only shows, 
or rather would if it were genuine, show what the 
Pope had done, or had been accustomed to do, and 



82 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OP 

thus serve as a precedent for the future. And they 
would thus show that the Pope was therein acknowl- 
edged to have the right and power thus to interfere 
as Pastor of the Pastors — Patriarch of Patriarchs — 
of the whole Church, and in each and all of its parts. 

The Decretals are in six books. The last of the 
six was added by Boniface VIII. about 1298. But 
no genuine Decretals have been discovered that were 
issued earlier than those that were issued 
by Siricius, who became Pope in A. D. 385. 
The pretended decrees of an earler date — that is, the 
forgeries — began to be extensively used in the ninth 
century A. D. 858-867 — when Nicholas L, as we 
have seen, tried to impose a forgery or forged read- 
ing of the xviith Canon of Chalcedon on the whole 
Church. 

The forgeries thus palmed off on the Church, 
claimed to be genuine copies of the Decretals from 
the very first days of the Church's existence at 
Rome, assigning the first to Clement, who was 
Bishop of Rome from A. D. 91 to A. D. 100. 

It is now known that these Decretals were in- 
vented — or, at least, published — by a Bishop who 
lived in Spain in the sixth century, and they were 
issued by him under the assumed name of Isidore. 
They were extensively used and with great effect at 
the time, but are now universally acknowledged to 
have been forgeries. 

The fraud, I say, is now universally acknowledged. 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 83 

But the Romanists show no disposition to give up 
what they gained by it. Judas returned the " thirty 
pieces of silver/' Peter repented and was restored. 
But the Bishops of Rome and their advocates do 
not seem inclined either to repent or restore what 
they gained by these false pretenses. 

I can well believe, and am glad to hope and be- 
lieve, that in those days of ignorance and the utter 
lack of knowledge and criticism, many who used 
these forged documents did it in good faith and 
without the slightest suspicion of their real char- 
acter. And this concession may extend even to the 
Popes themselves — at least some of them. 

And yet, at a still later date, these frauds have been 
continued — or, rather, new ones have been attempted. 
Jeremy Taylor, in his " Dissuasive from Popery" (B. 
i., Sec. vi.,) has shown that as late as the fifteenth 
and sixteeth centuries more than one deliberate at- 
tempt has been made by the writers and other 
authorities in the Roman Obedience, to corrupt the 
works of the genuine Fathers so as to make them 
teach the supremacy of the Bishops of Rome and 
the peculiarities of the Romanish doctrines. 

One example is all that I can find room for in 
this connection. In St. Cyprian's treatise on " The 
Unity of the ChnrcJi" (died A. D. 258,) they have 
introduced, within a few lines, corruptions which I 
will indicate in my quotation by putting them in 
brackets and also in italics. u And again He says 



84 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 

to the same after his resurrection, ' feed my sheep.' " 
{Upon Him, being one, He builds His Church and 
commits his sheep to be fed.'] And although to all 
the Apostles after His resurrection He gives an 
equal power and says : * As My Father hath sent 
Me, even so send I you, receive ye the Holy Ghost ; 
whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto 
them/ yet that He might set forth unity He arranged 
by his authority the origin of that unity as begin- 
ning from one. Assuredly the rest of the Apostles 
were also, the same as Peter, endowed with a like 
partnership, both of honor and of power ; but the 
beginning proceeds from one, [and the primacy is 
given to Peter that there might be shown to be but one 
CJiurch of Christ and one See ; and they are all Shep- 
herds and tlie Flock Is one which is fed by all the 
Apostles with unanimous consent^] which one Christ, 
also the Holy Spirit, in the song of songs, says. 
. . . Does he who does not hold this unity of 
the Church think that he holds the Faith ? Does 
he who strives against and resists the Church, [who 
deserts the chair of Peter on whom the Church is 
founded^ trust that he is in the Church," etc., etc. 

This one extract with the interpolations will serve 
to show that the attempts at fraud were not all con- 
fined to the earlier stages of the strife. 

V. But the Papal usurpations were not an un- 
mixed evil. Or rather, like all the evils that occur 
in the world, God used it for His purposes and over- 
ruled it for good. 



THE FATAL SUTREMACY. 



85 



All through the Middle Ages, from the downfall 
of Rome itself, A. D. 476, there was a state of 
almost unparalleled barbarism and disorder through- 
out Europe. The civil authorities were not only 
hostile to each other, but they were only too often 
inclined to use the Church, its funds, its offices — 
especially its Bishops — to promote their ambitious, 
sometimes their most unrighteous, schemes. The 
Bishops of Rome, availing themselves of the in- 
fluence they had acquired, had but too often oc- 
casion to interfere. This interference was for the 
most part in the direction of protecting the Bishops 
and other Clergy against secular interference in the 
performance of their duties. Doubtless the Bishops 
of Rome had, for the most part, an eye to their own 
aggrandizement and the aggrandizement of their 
See. But, on the whole, their influence was in favor 
of Christianity, the proper performance of the 
Christian duties, as they were then understood, of 
the Bishops and Clergy, and the promotion of civil- 
ization. In fact, one does not readily see how the 
Church, Christianity, or even the Scriptures, could 
have been preserved through that dark period with- 
out the exercise of this Papal authority. 

To my mind, the case is strikingly analgous to 
the history of the Hebrew people. In the Penta- 
teuch, (Deut. xxiii., 14-20,) Moses warned them of 
the dangers that attended a monarchy in somewhat 
impressive terms. And then when they asked for a 



36 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 

King, Samuel the Prophet warned them against it 
(i. Sam. viii., 6 and following). But one was selected, 
and we can now hardly see or imagine how the 
nation could have been perpetuated without the Kings 
from Saul to Rehoboam, or protected against insur- 
rections within and the encroachment of enemies 
without and around them. 

But the Kings, from Solomon, at least, became one 
among the chief influences in promoting the 
decay of true religion and the introduction of 
false religion, idolatry, and general depravity and 
corruption of morals, until in B. C. 725 we have the 
ten tribes carried away by Shalamaneser, and in a 
few generations more (B. C. 586) the other ten 
tribes, the kingdom of Judah were carried to Bab- 
ylon. The Jews in their Babylonish captivity repent, 
ed of their sins and were restored. But the ten 
tribes were never restored. They constitute " the 
Dispersion" and their only chance or hope as it 
would seem, is "after the fulness of the Gentiles be- 
come in." (Rom. xi., 25.) 

The Jews who were allowed to return from their 
Babylonish Captivity, rebuild Jerusalen and the 
Temple and restore their worship, never sought or 
desired to restore the Kingship. 

Nevertheless, I regard the assumptions of the 
Bishop of Rome as being in themselves an 
evil. But the times were evil ; and events in 
this world require remedies that are themselves evils 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. g^ 

— only the least of evils, one or the other of 
which is inevitable. Medicines are evils ; but it often 
happens that a powerful drug which is a deadly 
poison saves a human life. We cannot, however, 
make that drug the ordinary food when the disease 
is gone, for men who are in health. The thick clothes 
of winter are necessary during the winter ; but 
nobody wants to wear them in the heat of summer. 

I do not mean to be understood, by this, as 
sanctioning the doctrine that " the end sanctified 
the means." There seem to be some evils in this 
world out of which there is no way but by another 
evil. When in the course of history God finds 
something that needs to be done, He always finds 
some one who has no " conscientious scruples" 
against doing it. The treachery of Judas,and the weak- 
ness of Pontius Pilate are alike necessary to the 
accomplishment of that Event, on which the for- 
giveness of sins and the salvation of mankind de- 
pend. 

For various reasons, Constantinople was unsuccess- 
ful in the contest with Rome, and finally the ri- 
valry which began in A. D.451, ended in a final sep- 
aration. Other points of difference and disagreement 
between the two great divisions of the Church, the 
East and the West, besides the claim to Supremacy, 
were under discussion and exerted more or less of 
influence. But the Supremacy claimed for the Bish- 
op of Rome, not only over Constantinople, but also 



88 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 

over all the other Churches of the East, was the turn- 
ing and controlling point. The East would not yield, 
and so the final separation ensued. 

At the time of the separation of " the East and the 
West," " the East," which, if it did not adhere to Con- 
stantinople, did agree with it in rejecting the Rom- 
ish claim, was much the largest part of the Church. 
Constantinople was much nearer the centre of Crist- 
endom ; and although we have no means of deter- 
mining the number very correctly," the East," prob- 
ably, contained not less than two thirds of the peo- 
ple who had embraced Christianity, and had at 
that time by far the largest amount of the scholar- 
ship and other means of influence that was then in- 
cluded in the Church. 

And the Bishops of Rome succeeded only in the 
West, and we are in a measure familiar with the 
result. The Bishops of Constantinople did not suc- 
ceed in establishing any such supremacy and control 
in the East, and the East, as it was known when 
the contest first made its appearance, was over-run by 
Mahomedans and remains what we see it to be now. 
Russia was not at that time known as a part of the 
Church ; its millions of inhabitants had not been 
converted to the Faith and have never submitted to 
Rome. 

Of course, what was then included in the East never 
submitted to the Papal claims, and it never fell into 
the peculiarities of the Church in the West which 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 



89 



called for the Reformation in the sixteenth century. 
The East included all that was left of the Church in 
Africa, Egypt and Absynia, in Europe east of the 
Adriatic Sea, including ancient Greece, Turkey in 
Europe, and Russia, with all of Asia from the Medi- 
terrean Sea to India, including Armenia and Persia 
down the great rivers Euphrates and Tigris to the 
Persian Gulf. 

VI. It may be said, and I believe it is commonly 
maintained by the adherents of the Roman Suprem- 
acy, as it is at the present day and has been grow- 
ing to be ever since the first centuries, that it is but 
a development or evolution of germs that were con- 
tained in the Primitive Church, if not in the original 
grant to St. Peter, (Matt, xvi., 16,) and especially in 
the subsequent charge given to him at his restora- 
tion — " feed my lambs, feed my sheep." (John xxi., 
16-18.) 

Evolution or development must be from within 
and of that which was contained within. If we 
had only the negative evidence, that is, the absence 
of evidence to which I have referred, this view 
might possibly be maintained. 

But we find that our Lord, before his sufferings 
on Calvary, had many things to say unto the Twelve, 
which they were not even then ready to receive. 
He talked with them during " the great forty days " 
of things pertaining "to the Kingdom." But even 
then there were some things — perhaps we 



9 o 



ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF 



ought to say many things — which they did not fully 
understand. And we see one such question of the 
very greatest importance, for which, as we have 
seen, the Apostles, Elders and Brethren came to- 
gether " to consider the matter." There was no 
reference of it to the supposed "Chair of St. Peter." 

But evolution or development must be of that 
and from that which is already within the original 
institution. It cannot be in contravention of any- 
thing that was thus contained or taught. 

And here our positive testimony comes to our 
aid. The fact that St. Paul was not a whit behind 
the very highest of the Apostles and had daily the 
care of all the Churches, leaves no room for the 
Supremacy of St. Peter, to say nothing of the 
equality of the Apostles in power and authority, one 
to another, which, as we have seen, was given to 
them in express terms and in the most explicit 
manner. (St. Matt, xviii., 18, St. Mark xvi., 15, St. 
Luke xxii., 28-31, St. John xx., 21-24.) 

Thus each of the Evanglists makes mention, 
though in different ways and in different terms, of 
the commission to the Apostles to go preach the 
Gospel, and build the Church. Yet no one of them 
uses terms that impliy any superiority of any one 
of them over the others. And St. Luke, in another 
place, (Acts xiii., 47,) represents St. Paul as saying : 
" For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I 
have set thee to be a light unto the Gentiles, that 



THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. g r 

thou (St. Paul) shouldest be for Salvation unto the 
ends of the Earth." And yet all the Apostles had 
part in this work. 

Now, when there is one provision for all the work 
that is to be done and all the authority that is to be 
exercised, there is of necessity the exclusion of all 
others. This I regard as naturally positive testi- 
mony against the claims for St. Peter. 

I regard the claim to infallibility as a confession of 
weakness and an indication of decay. Nobody in this 
last half of the nineteenth century would put forth 
such a claim unless he was conscious of putting forth 
claims, and holding and teaching doctrines that can- 
not be sustained by an appeal to Holy Scripture or 
any exercise of sound reason. And the fact that 
the Supremacy was useful or necessary in the past 
ages of darkness and barbarism, is no reason why it 
should be perpetuated through all ages to come. 

And doubtless it will pass away in God's own 
good time, when it has accomplished the purpose for 
which He raised it up, or rather permitted it to rise, 
shall have been accomplished. 

But that time has not come yet. No one of the 
Nations that have submitted to it, as France, Ger- 
many, Portugal and Spain has yet seen the time 
when the Church in those countries could assert its 
independence as did the Church of England in the 
sixteenth century as we shall see in the next chapter, 
at length. 



9 2 



ORIGIN OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 



Nor are the people who acknowledge that Su- 
premacy in this country yet prepared to do without 
it. That people have not been trained for so much 
religious freedom as such a rejection implies. And 
one must be strangely blind not to see how much 
restraint, in a moral and social point of view, their 
Priesthood are capable of exercising by their belief 
in this mediaeval figment. 

There are times and occasions when, and persons 
with whom, superstition is more effective as a means 
of controlling men than the truth itself. Nay, 
it is sometimes effective when even the sword of 
the magistrate is powerless. Error and heresy have 
had their martyrs as well as the truth itself. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM IN ENGLAND. 

While, then, we cannot regard the Papal Suprem- 
acy with the infallibility of the Pope, or without it, as a 
development of any principle or germ that was con- 
tained in the Primitive Christianity, I think that 
we must regard the Provincial System as but a 
legitimate, not to say inevitable, development of 
principles that were taught by our Lord Himself, 
of germs of which He and His Apostles embedded in 
the very substance of Christianity. 

He sent them to preach the Gospel to all nations, 
and promised to be with them always, even unto the 
end of the world. He not only gave them charge 
and authority to make converts in all these nations 
and throughout all time, but also to teach them to 
observe all things whatsoever he had commanded. 
He also gave to any " two or three of them" that 
might be gathered in His name, in any nation or 
Province, even when they could not all be assembled 
in a Council as at Jerusalem, power to hear and 



94 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



determine causes that might arise, with authority 
that should be binding and final, so far as any au- 
thority of earth or on earth should be concerned. "It 
shall be bound in Heaven," are His own expressive 
and emphatic words. 

I. But what is a " nation " — for they were to 
preach to all nations ? And what is a Province — 
how large a part of a " nation ?" 

Of course, our Lord never marked out nor recog- 
nized any subdivisions of the earth's surface in such 
a way as to give it special sanction or to make its 
perpetuation a matter of necessity or of Christian 
obligation. He left that to the course of events or, 
rather, to the course of that Providence working in 
historic events, "who hath made all nations to dwell 
on all the face of the earth and hath determined the 
times before appointed and the bounds of their hab- 
itation." (Acts xvii., 26.) 

But we have seen that the Primitive Church did 
not only recognize, but also developed, this system. 
They divided the Catholic Church, or rather recog- 
nized its division into Provinces in accordance with 
the political divisions of the State — made the chief 
city, or seat of government, of each Province the 
seat or See of its Primate, Metropolitan or Chief 
Bishop. And they also made him, with his coad- 
jutors, the ultimate power on earth for arranging 
and managing all matters of -detail and discipline 
under, doubtless, the supreme authority of Holy 



IN ENGLAND. 



95 



Scriptures and the superior authority of a General 
Council, which represented, in fact, not only the 
body of "the Apostles, Elders and Brothers'' as at 
Jerusalem, but also the body of their successors in 
all that was permanent and transmissible in their 
office through ail the world and through all the suc- 
ceeding ages of worldly time. 

Nor is this all. The early Councils, as we have 
seen, provided for changes in the boundaries of 
their " Provinces " in the ecclesiastical, so as to make 
them conform to all the changes and divisions of 
what were called Provinces in the civil or political 
use of the word. (Chalcedon xvii.) 

How far this law of the early Church is obligatory 
on us or binding for all time, is a question that I 
will not raise nor discuss in this connection. It is, 
at any rate, a safe precedent and involves a principle 
which, as I think, is to some extent and in some 
form inevitable in these modern times and when there 
is no union of Church and State, as well as in all 
former times when such union existed in some form 
or other. Some of our duties to " the laws of the 
land " and to " those that are in authority " were 
sure to make some such principle a matter of neces- 
sity. 

But think what we may and say what we will 
about the Provincial System as having been contem- 
plated and provided for in the words used by our 
Lord in the passages of Holy Scripture which I 



9 6 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



have quoted, there can be no doubt that the Primi- 
tive Church in the first centuries of its existence did 
develop it and distinctly recognize it as the proper 
outgrowth of what our Lord said, even if it were not 
the distinct and definite thing that He intended. Nor 
can there be any doubt of its necessity as a means 
of carrying on the work he gave to them in convert- 
ing the nations and establishing His Church through- 
out the whole world. 

The men for whom He died, who were to be con- 
verted, resided so far apart that they must have some 
means of settling minor questions that should arise 
near at hand, even in their very midst. They were 
of different languages, and must have the Scrip- 
tures translated into the tongues that were vernacular 
to them. They must also have some details in 
their mode of worship and administering the Sacra- 
ments provided for them. They would each of them 
have some questions with regard to the mode of life 
to be settled that were peculiar to themselves. In 
short, they would need just what every Church and 
every sect or denomination find necessary for them- 
selves in the rules of dicipline which, in whatever 
form and by whatever name they may be called, 
they provide for and pass in their " Synods,'* " Coun- 
cils," "Diets," "Presbyteries," "General Assemblies" 
or " Conferences," by whatever name they are called, 
such as all of them hold at times for the very pur- 
pose which our Lord seems to have had in mind 



IN ENGLAND. 



97 



when He uttered the words I have so often quoted 
in this connection. 

And they all hold these acts of theirs to be author- 
ity also. If any member " offends " against any one 
of themselves or against their rules they do not hesi- 
tate to subject to " discipline," and, even, to 
" excommunication " those whom they find incor- 
rigible. They act as though they believed that 
whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven 
and whatsoever they shall loose on earth shall be 
loosed in heaven. 

The words " in heaven " I should be disposed to 
understand or read "the Church," which is, in a 
sense, " the Kingdom Heaven." And for " loose," 
I think we may well believe that what is meant, is 
any relaxation of a mere matter of detail that was 
used and practiced at an earlier day, perhaps in the 
very times of our Lord and His Apostles them- 
selves. 

We have, in fact, many details that fairly come 
under this head as the mode and form of adminis- 
tering Baptism, whether by immersion or affusion, 
the annointing of the sick with oil, and many other 
such like things relating to the mere manner of 
worship and the administration of the Sacraments, 
which may be changed so long as we leave the sub- 
stance untouched. 

II. But to return from this somewhat prolonged 
digression. I shall assume that we have seen enough 



9 8 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



to satisfy us that the Provincial System, if not dis- 
tinctly and directly ordained and provided for by 
our Lord Himself, was yet developed by the Primi 
tive Church in conformity with what they believed 
had He taught, and without in any respect, whether 
of principle or detail, violating the instructions He 
gave or going contrary to the words He used and 
the institutions He ordained. 

We have seen that at the time of the General 
Councils the Roman Empire consisted of some one 
hundred and twenty Provinces, besides Missionary 
work outside of the Empire, as is seen by the xxviii. 
Canon of Chalcedon. It is also supposed that there 
were about two thousand Bishops in the Church at 
that time and, therefore, there were an average of 
about sixteen Bishops to a Province. In many of 
them there can be no doubt that the number was 
much larger. But in the least and smallest of them 
there must have been, at least, "two or three," as 
specified in our Lord's declaration and as provided 
for in order that any Bishop could be ordained, by 
first of the Apostolic Canons. And the number 
was raised to three, at least, by the ivth Canon of 
Nice. The phraseology of the Canon, however, im- 
plies that there was at that time no Province in 
which there was not that number. 

But to come nearer to our own times and to the 
more immediately practical purpose of this Essay. 

England, at the time of the Councils, was a Dio- 



IN ENGLAND. 



99 



cese, and had five Provinces in the political sense, 
and for the purpose of its civil administration. But 
there seerns to have been only three ecclesiastical 
Provinces, with three Metropolitical Sees, namely, 
York, London and Caerleon (in Wales). 

We do not know precisely when or by whom 
Christianity was first preached in England. It is in 
this respect like the great majority of the Provinces 
which were then in the Roman Empire ; like Carth- 
age and Alexandria, like the South of France, like 
Rome itself, and, in fact, the whole of the East beyond 
Antioch and Jerusalem. 

After the Council at Jerusalem, we know almost 
nothing of the doings and teachings of St. Peter 
himself, except as we have it from writers who lived 
many years after the close of his life. It is true 
that he wrote an Epistle to " the strangers " in the 
northern portion of Asia Minor on the shores of the 
Black Sea. But then, it was to the " Dispersion," 
that is, the Jews who were scattered abroad through 
those regions. And the fact of his having written 
a letter to them does not prove that he had ever 
been among them. St. Paul had not been at Rome 
when he wrote his letter to the Romans. And the 
work of preaching the Gospels and establishing the 
Church among the Jews had been given to St. Peter, 
as the like work and responsibility with regard to 
the Gentiles had been given to St. Paul. (Gal. ii., 
7-9, 2 Cor. xi., 28.) And St. Peter appears to have 



I00 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

written the Epistle from Babylon, which was far 
down on the Euphrates towards the Persian Gulf. 
And this seems to me better proof that he was there 
when this Epistle was written A. D. 60 or later, than 
we have that he was ever at Rome at all. 

But the Church of England, or rather the Church 
in England, was fully organized and had three of its 
Bishops, one from each of the Metropolitan Sees 
named above, London, York and Caerleon, at the 
Council of Aries in the South of France, which 
met A. D. 314, eleven years before the Council of 
Nice, in the northwestern corner of Asia Minor. 
And St. Athanasius says there were Bishops from 
England at the Council of Nice, though that part of 
the list of those who attended, in which the names 
should appear, is lost. 

But in A. D. 358, St. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, 
in the middle of France, addressed a letter to the 
Christians in all the Provinces north of Spain and 
west of Germany (which was not converted at that 
time), over which he claimed a sort of Patriarchal 
jurisdiction. In this letter he speaks of the Prov- 
inces of Britain and includes their Bishops in his 
address, " Entreaty for peace and union," as he 
calls it. 

About this time the invasion of the Saxons — who 
were yet unconverted heathen — became so trouble- 
some to the Christians in Great Britain that we hear 
nothing more of them as attending the General 
Councils we have mentioned above. 



IN ENGLAND. IO i 

The Saxon conquest was accomplished in the sixth 
century (A. D. 477-547). Up to this time there 
had been no knowledge or recognition of any Su- 
premacy or authority of the Bishop of Rome in or 
over the Church in England in any of its Provinces. 

III. But after the Saxon conquest a holy and 
earnest Christian man saw some beautiful youths of 
the Saxon race in Rome and was prompted to inquire 
who they were and from what part of the world 
they had been brought, for they were slaves. He 
learned that they were Angles — or Saxons — and 
from the Island of England. He determined to go 
as a Missionary to that people, and actually started 
on his journey when he was called back to be Bishop 
of Rome as Gregory the Great. 

Gregory, however, does not seem to have forgotten 
his zeal for the conversion of these heathen people 
in the glory and cares of his episcopate. And in A. 
D, 596 he sent Augustine (not the great Augus- 
tine of Hippo) to undertake the work he had thus 
been prevented from prosecuting in person. 

Augustine, on his arrival, found a survival of the 
ancient British Church, and found, too, apparently 
to his surprise, that it differed in some respects from 
the ritual and forms to which he had been accus- 
tomed at Rome. He called a Council of those 
Bishops whom he found there, to discuss these 
matters in which the two Churches had been found 
to differ, and asked them to conform to the Romanist 
ways. 



102 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



And in regard to the day on which Easter should 
be kept, he had the right and law on his side. For 
the Council of Nice had decided that Easter should 
be kept on the Sunday, the actual day of the week 
of our Lord's Resurrection, rather than on the four- 
teeth day of the month, whatever the day of the 
week it might happen to be. 

But as to any Supremancy or authority of the 
Bishop of Rome over the Church of England or the 
Christians in the British Islands, the reply as 
given by Dinott, Abbot of Bangor, is explicit : " Be 
it known to you, beyond a doubt, that we are all 
and each one of us obedient and subject to the 
Church of God and the Pope of Rome, and to every 
other true and pious Christian, to the extent of 
loving each of them in word or deed as the sons of 
God; but other obedience than this we do not 
know to be justly claimed and proved to be due to 
him whom you call Father of the Fathers " — a title 
which he had given the Pope. " And this obedience 
we are willing to give and perform to him and to 
every other Christian continually. But for anything 
further we are under the jurisdiction of the Bishop 
of Caerleon on Uske, who is under God to take the 
oversight of us and make us pursue a spiritual life. 7 

We have seen that this Caerleon was the seat of 
one of the three Provinces in the Church of Eng- 
land before the Saxon conquest. One of its Bishops 
was at the Council of Aries, A. D. 314. And one 



IN ENGLAND. 



103 



of them was addressed by St, Hilary, A. D. 359, in 
his Eirenicum. The Province in the civil division 
was called Britania Secunda and included all west of 
the river Severn in a line up north from the mouth 
of that river as it enters the British Channel, to 
Liverpool. It had, at least, five Bishops who were 
present on this occasion and, therefore, enough to 
comply with our Lord's direction, "two or three," 
and with all the Canons of the Primitive Church in 
regard to the holding Provincial Councils. 

V. We have then three centres of Missionary 
or Church operation in England, for the century or 
more following (1) the Church in Wales, which never 
ceased its existence or its work ; (2) the Church in 
the Province of York, which was never altogether 
overrun and conquered by the Saxons ; and (3) the 
Province of London or Canterbury in the southeast 
part of the Island. This was especially the seat and 
scene of the Missionary efforts of Augustine and 
his successor until after, by the united efforts of all 
these Provinces, all England had been brought to 
confession of Christ. 

The complete union of the two or, rather, three 
communions of the rival churches, including the 
Celtic and Pictish, with that founded by Augustine 
— that is, the Welch, the Irish and the Scotch — as 
well as a large part of the north of England, was 
not finally effected until A. D. 1135-50. 

IV. But, in A. D. 1060, William, the Duke of 



104 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



Normandy, which was the northwest corner of France, 
undertook the conquest of England. It is under- 
stood that he did this in conjunction and with the 
approval, if not the co-operation, of the Bishop of 
Rome, who was at that time Alexander II. At all 
events, they helped each other. The Pope helped 
the invader to gain, and especially to retain, the 
crown ; and the King, in return, helped the Pope to 
extend his authority and influence in England over 
the English Church. 

From this time, A. D. 1066, to the reign of Henry 
VII I., A. D. 1509, the two forces co-operated. And, 
we may add, that notwithstanding the occasional 
controversies and conflicts between the two, Kings 
and Pope, neither one of them could have kept his 
place and position over the Church and people with- 
out the help of the other. 

But, although the Papal influence in England was 
an assumption and a tyranny, it was not wholly an 
evil or, rather, it was one of those necessary evils 
which we find everywhere in the world. Where there 
is evil to be cured or dealt with, whether it be dis- 
eases of the body or sins of the soul, they are evils, 
and remedies which they require, for any effectual 
treatment and cure, are of the nature of evils also. 
Lesser evils are often the only means to avoid or 
cure greater ones. 

Tyranny was the characteristic of the age. It 
was the only cure for the worse evil of anarchy and 



IN ENGLAND. 10 § 

total lawlessness. In the State, there could be no 
order or law without it. In the Church, there could 
be no administration of the worship and Sacraments, 
and more especially no enforcement of a Godly life 
without it. In the East, tyranny in the State there 
was in abundance. But in the Church — including 
the three Eastern Patriarchates, Antioch, Alexandria 
and Constantinople — there was none, or none, at 
least, that could cope with and resist the tyranny of 
the State and the corrupt tendencies of the human 
heart, " the fault and corruption of every man which 
doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerate," even 
unto the end of their lives. And we see in the 
history and present condition of the Eastern 
Churches the consequence. 

But in the West, in Rome, there was that which 
arose to meet the emergencies of the times. The idea 
of rule and ruling the whole world and all the men 
that were in it, was a fundamental element in the 
truly Roman character. It v/as as much an instinct 
— unconscious, perhaps, but controlling in its nature 
— as that of the wildcat or the tiger that prowls to 
catch its prey, or the fish that swim in the sea. 

The first truly Roman Bishop had (Victor A. D. 
190-202) it in his veins; the second, who was still 
more thoroughly Roman in his nature and education, 
(Leo A. D. 440-461,) made it conspicuous; the 
glorious and holy Gregory the Great (A. D. 590-604) 
was not without it. And from his time onward the 



I0 6 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

idea that Rome must assume and control the Chris- 
tianity that was in the world or to be in the world — 
the western part, at least, — was never lost sight of, 
and often became conspicuously the controlling idea 
of the men who occupied that See. 

And if this Supremacy was, as I have expressed 
my belief that it was, necessary for the administra- 
tion of the Church and the preservation of Christian- 
ity in the West generally, it was scarcely less so for 
England at the time. 

Doubtless the Pope helped the King, and with- 
out his help no King, from William the Conquerer, 
A. D. 1066, to Henry the Eighth, A. D. 1509, could 
have kept his throne or continued to wear his crown 
in England. 

But, on the other hand, while the King dared not 
reject the Papal influence wholly, or even so much 
as attempt to set it aside and get along without it, 
the Pope did very often interpose in behalf of Bish- 
ops and Clergy for the preaching of Gospel, the up- 
holding and maintaining it as against the King him- 
self. And the Kings were always in fear of such an 
interference and were always more or less restrained 
by that fear. 

THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND. 

V. But on the quarrel of Henry VIII., about 

his marriage — or rather his divorce from Queen 

Catharine— Henry determined to carry his point and 

have his way, notwithstanding the Pope. And the 



IN ENGLAND. 



107 



Church took advantage of this quarrel to declare in 
favor of a reformation towards which opinions and 
events had been more especially tending for some 
two hundred years, since the days of Wy cliff, A. D. 

1350. 

Taking advantage of this state of things, the 
Church, in each of its two Provinces — that is, in the 
Convocation in each — passed acts expressly rejecting 
the Papal Supremacy, and declaring what had always 
been the law of the Realm, that there never had 
been any such Supremacy by divine right or by any 
other means than fraud and usurpation. 

Their words are as follows: In the Convocation 
of Canterbury, March 31, 1534, " the Roman Bishop 
has no greater jurisdiction given him by God in this 
Kingdom than any other foreign Bishop." The 
Convocation of York in the same year, June 1st, 
1534, put their declaration in these words: "The 
Roman Bishop has not in the Holy Scriptures any 
greater jurisdiction in the Kingdom of England 
than any other foreign Bishop." 

And this decision was adopted and accepted by 
the Church almost unanimously, as it had been pre- 
viously declared by Parliament. The Archbishop 
of York said that he did not know of more than 
twelve of the secular clergy and very few of the 
friars that dissented. 

And of the few men, lay and cleric, who did dis- 
sent or hesitate, as in the case of Sir Thomas More 



I0 3 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

and Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester, they have 
left on record their reasons. It was simply that they 
feared greater evils from the tyranny and interference 
in Church affairs which King Henry would exercise, 
than had been caused or were likely to be caused by 
the Pope. If they must have a tyrant and a usurper 
over them, they preferred a Pope who was, at least, 
a Clergyman and lived in Italy, to a mere layman, 
and rather a coarse and beastly man, at that, who 
was right among them. 

What the English actually did then was to reject 
and cast off the Papal usurpations and assert and 
exercise their Provincial rights in reforming their 
Church from the errors and abuses that had crept 
into it during the dark ages that had passed. 

I have said " Provincial rights." But we must re- 
member there were two Provinces in the ecclesias- 
tical sense — that of Wales had been absorbed into 
Canterbury — and yet not tv/o Provinces in the civil 
sense, and in that sense in which the General Coun- 
cil of Chalcedon (Can. xvii.) use the word when it 
directed that the ecclesiastical arrangement should 
follow the subdivision of the Empire, But, as 
England was but one nation or, if you please, one 
Province, in the sense that it was under one and the 
same civil government, there could be but one Prov- 
incial Church in England. 

But in thus rejecting the Papal Supremacy, the 
Church of England did not separate nor intend to 



IN ENGLAND. 



I09 



separate from the Roman Church, as it is sometimes 
expressed, or from the other National Churches, 
even though they continued still to acknowledge 
and submit to that Supremacy. She intended 
and claimed only to exercise her own rights as an 
independent Branch of the Church of Christ. 

Thus the Church of England, says in her xxxth 
Can., 1603 ; " Nay, so far was it from the purpoce of 
the Church of England to forsake and reject the 
Churches of Italy, France, Spam, Germany and any 
such like Churches in all th.ngs which they held 
and practiced that .... it doih with rever- 
ence retain those ceremonies which do neither en- 
danger the Church of God nor offend the minds of 
sober men." The Church of England departed 
from them, in fact, only as they had departed from 
their Apostolic Models. 

I have italicised the words " such like " in the 
foregoing extract from the Canons of the English 
Church, for it seems to me that they have a special 
and significant meaning. 

It will be noticed that the Churches are all 
" National " Churches, and still in the Roman Obedi- 
ence. But in the xix. of her xxxix. Articles the 
Church of England makes mention of the Patriarch- 
ates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome 
as " having erred in matters of Faith," But she no- 
where recognizes the Protestant Churches on the 
continent or those within her own borders as 
Branches of the Universal Church of Christ. 



no 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



I take no notice in this place of the " argument" 
sometimes used to the effect that England, having 
once consented to the Supremacy of the Pope, has 
no right to reject it ; it was a contract, and neither 
party had a right to break it. 

But we may "turn the tables" on them and say 
that by the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Canons 
the Bishops of Rome had no right to extend their 
Supremacy into England. It was a " wrong" from 
the beginning and, therefore, the Pope has no right 
to insist upon it. 

But, seriously, if the Bishops of Rome extended 
their influence and interfered in Churches beyond 
their lawful and proper jurisdiction, with the best of 
intentions, and with no mistake of judgment as to the 
best and, perhaps, the only means by which it could 
have been done — interfered solely for the good of 
the Church, the promotion of Missionary work and 
the protection of the Church and its Ministers 
against the political powers of the world, its tyran- 
ous Kings and godless Dukes and Nobles, and I have 
no hesitation in believing and in saying that many of 
them did interfere, assert and extend their " Suprem- 
acy " in this way and interfere for these reasons, so 
that they may be regarded as wholly justified in what 
they did, yet, when the occasion had passed away, 
the insistence itself became a sin, no less than if the 
occasion had never occurred. 

We often put lunatics and insane persons under 



IN ENGLAND, ! : r 

guardians, and even in chains, for their own good, to 
save their own lives and their property. But this is 
no justification for the continuance of this authority 
over them and the abridgment of their rights when 
reason is restored and they become able to take care 
of themselves again. 

VI. It forms no part of my design to discuss the 
doctrines and practices which had prevailed in Eng- 
land under the Papal influence and which had been, 
to a large extent, forced upon the English by that 
influence and against their tastes and judgment, as 
forming in any sense or to any extent a justification 
for the measure of rejecting that Supremacy. I am 
content, or, at least, it is all that my present purpose 
requires, to let it rest on the simple question, whether 
the Papal Supremacy or the freedom of the Pro- 
vincial System, both for England and all the other 
" nations" of the world was or was not in accord- 
ance with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and 
the Canons of the Early Church. And on this point 
I will say no more at present. 

Still, however, it may be well to state that the 
Canons of the General Councils, as we have seen, 
not only bear most explicit testimony to the Pro- 
vincial System with its enlargement into general in- 
dependent Patriarchates, but they did expressly en- 
act that " if anyone shall introduce any regulation 
contrary to what has been defined, the whole Holy 
and Ecumenical Synod (of Ephesus) has decreed 
that it shall be of no effect." (Eph., Can. viii.) 



1 1 2 THE PRO VI NCI A L S YSTEM 

Nor do I propose to discuss the Papal abuses at 
length that led to the rejection. I will, however, 
allude, in passing, to the enormous pecuniary burdens 
which the Papal Supremacy imposed upon the Eng- 
lish people as a means of sustaining this foreign 
Papacy. Besides filling many of the richest Sees 
and Abbacies with foreigners, French and Italians, 
who could not speak the English language and who 
were put there for the double purpose of " provid- 
ing" for these incumbents, and for advocating and 
enforcing the Supremacy upon an unwilling and 
often a rebellious people. They managed to raise, 
in the form of what was called " Peter's pence," and 
in other forms and by other means, and to send to 
Italy, for the Pope's use, more, in some instances, 
than they had or could raise to spend for charitable 
and religious purposes at home. 

Why should the people of England thus draw 
from their own resources and impoverish themselves 
to support a foreign Bishop, and he by no means a 
Missionary Bishop in a heathen land, but the Bishop 
of what claimed to be the capital city of the world ? 

Nor was this all. The money thus drawn from 
England was not only used to support the splendor 
and, alas ! the profligacy of the Roman Church, but 
it was used in some cases, as is said, as a means of 
carrying on war against England itself. 

At this time there was but one Church in England 
which was the Church of England. And nobody 



IN ENGLAND. 



"3 



seems to have thought of the possibility of there 
being more than one Church in the same Province 
or within the bounds of the same national territory. 
In the. early days, and until the Saxon invasion in 
the fifth century, there was but one Church in the 
three Provinces — Wales, York and London. By 
the Saxon invasion, the Church became extinct in 
the Province of London and badly crippled in that 
of York. The Archbishops of both Provinces fled 
into Wales, where the Church continued, not very 
badly disturbed by the invading heathen. On the 
coming of Augustine, A. D. 596, there began the 
work of conversion among the Saxons in the old 
Province of London, with its See, then, as now, at 
Canterbury. For a while, as we have seen, the two 
communities — the two Branches of the Church — 
were not in full communion. But gradually the 
work of converting the Saxons continued until it 
was completed and the points of difference between 
the two Churches were reconciled, and in 11 50, if 
not earlier, the union was complete and had been so 
from that time to the time of the rejection of the 
Papal Supremacy, of which I have just spoken. 

VII. Having rejected the Papal Supremacy and 
escaped its control, the English Church resolved to 
proceed with the work of reformation. It deter- 
mined to have the Holy Scriptures in English and 
freely circulated and used among the people — to 
have the Prayers in English, which all the people 



U4 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



could understand—to allow the Bishops and Priests 
to marry and to live like other men, and to inculcate 
and insist upon the doctrines and discipline of a holy 
life, as they had been taught and practiced in the 
Primitive and undivided Church. 

At this time, that is, from Henry VIII. to the 
time of Elizabeth, nobody seems to have thought 
of separating from the Church or of the possibility 
of two churches in the same country. The first per- 
sons to secede and establish a schismatic body were 
the Romanists — the adherents of the Pope A. D. 
1569. And soon after that, A. D. 1572, the Presby- 
terians — the adherents of John Calvin — made a like 
movement. 

And from that time secessions have been frequent. 
And the idea has generally prevailved that believers 
may separate and form Churches of their own and 
in accordance with their own tastes and preferences, 
if they only hold the true Faith. It has become, in 
a sense, what we may call " the Protestant Idea," the 
central and fundamental principle of what is pecul- 
iarly — and, I may add, appropriately — called Protest- 
antism. 

But, assuredly, we can find no such idea in the 
Holy Scriptures. Nor was any such thought toler- 
ated by the Early Church. 

In the Scriptures we not only read that " the LORD 
added to the Church daily such as should be saved " 
— or were being saved — but we have warning against 



IN ENGLAND. H5 

heresy (1 Cor. xi., 19; Gal. v., 20; 2 Pet. ii., 1) and 
schisms, (1 Cor. xii., 23,) as well as strifes, contentions 
and divisions in the Church. (1 Cor. iii., 3; Gal. v., 
20 Phil, i., 6; Rom. xvi., 17.) 

We have also those spoken of as separating them- 
selves, (Jude. 19,) going out from the Church and 
becoming, in some way, either by the opinions they 
held and advocated or by the church organizations 
which they set up for themselves, anti-Christian, and 
in an important sense opposed to Christ and His 
Church. (1 John ii , 18-20.) They were from that 
time regarded, not as gathering with Him and into 
His Fold, but rather as scattering abroad. 

And the Early Church took the same view of the 
subject. Thus the Council of Constantinople (A. 
A. 381) defined the word Heretics, (Can. vf,) those 
who have been cast off by the Church, and in addi- 
tion those, also, who do, indeed, pretend to con- 
fess the true faith, but have separated themselves 
and formed congregations in opposition to our 
Canonical Bishops. 

It should be carefully noted here that this is a 
General Council and, therefore, there are two quite 
different points to be considered; (1) those who had 
been cast off or excommunicated by the General 
Councils. Provincial or local Councils and Synods 
are quite a different affair. In fact, I presume that 
there is scarcely one, perhaps not one, of the doc- 
trines of the Catholic Faith — not one in the Apos- 



U6 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

ties, or Nice creed — that has not been denied by 
some such local or Provincial Synod and its adher- 
ents excommunicated and anathematised. 

But the other (2) point is all those who, though 
they do profess to hold the true Faith, do yet sep- 
arate themselves and form congregations in opposi- 
tion to the Canonical Bishops of the Province. 
Like our Lord, they did not consider difference and 
disagreement in opinion or doctrine a justification 
for secession and separation from, but, rather, as 
an occasion for remaining in the Church and labor- 
ing for its restoration and adoption of the true 
dotrine — if, indeed, it, rather than they themselves, 
was in the wrong. 

In Can. viii., of the same Council, there is a deter- 
mination with regard to the reception of those who 
had " separated themselves," on whatever ground, 
back into the Communion of the Church. They 
make two classes: (1) Some of them as Arians 
and Macedonians (the former of whom denied the 
Divinity of Christ, the latter the Personality of the 
Holy Ghost) with others were to be received with- 
out rebaptising and with only a written renuncia- 
tion of their errors and confirmation at the hands of 
the Canonical or Catholic Bishops. And then (2) 
there were others, as Eunomians, Montainists and 
such like, who were to be received by baptism as 
though they were not merely " heretics " or schis- 
matics, but were rather mere heathens, or worse. 



IN ENGLAND. 



117 



And all the Canons of the six General Councils 
and those of the Apostolic code, as well as those in 
the five codes of the Provincial Councils that were 
recognized by the General Councils, coincide with 
this view. 

But, of course, in these modern times, when the 
difficulty of identifying the Church and finding who 
have the right to speak to us in the name of the 
Lord, and when the principle of the right to sep- 
arate and form Churches, each for himself, has be- 
come prevalent, the case has become very different, 
though the principle doubtless remains the same. 

VIII. I have spoken of Provinces and of Dio- 
ceses (in the modern sense, Parishes in the ancient 
use of the word). But I have scarcely had occasion 
to speak of National Churches. When the Gospel 
was first preached, and when the General Councils 
were held, there was but one nation in the modern 
sense of the word. " The nations " spoken of in 
the Scriptures to whom the Gospel was to be 
preached, (Matt, xxiv., 14,) and to which God hath 
appointed the bounds of their habitation," (Acts 
xvii., 26,) were not political bodies or corporations 
at all — not bodies politic like our modern nations — 
but they were rather " races " and " peoples," dis. 
tinguished chiefly by their language and other 
peculiarities which showed them to have been de- 
scended from some common stock. 

Hence, in this sense of the word, the French are 



I ! 3 THE PRO VINCI A L S YSTEM IN ENGLAND, 

one " nation," whether living in France or wherever 
else, so long as they speak the French language and 
have a common French ancestry. And in this way, 
too, all English speaking people must be regarded 
as one " nation," whether living in Europe, on the 
Island of Great Britain — in America — these United 
States, or Canada, in India, Africa, Australia or the 
Islands of the South Seas. 

And then, wherever they go, they are the English 
Nation or " people," and will carry their religion — 
the Gospel as they profess and hold it, the Church 
as they have it organized and administered, and its 
worship as established and observed by them in 
their Provinces at home — until, by the organization 
of Provinces elsewhere, competent for that purpose 
they shall make such changes as the changes in time 
and place, political institutions and habits of the 
people may require and as are allowable, by Holy 
Scriptures and the Canons of the Ancient Church, 
to each Province. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES. 

The Church in these United States presents some 
peculiar features and problems of serious difficulty. 
It is a National Church, in the modern sense of the 
word,, and it is, as yet, but one Province. The terri- 
tory of the United States is about the same in ex- 
tent as that of the Roman Empire when the Gen- 
eral Councils were held, and when the Empire in- 
cluded some one hundred and fifty or two hundred 
millions of inhabitants,and one hundred and seventeen 
Provinces. There were then, as is estimated, about 
two thousand Bishops. Our territory is now as 
large as theirs, and our population will be as great 
in some forty or fifty years, at least. 

I. Of course, therefore, some subdivision of our 
Church, which is now really but one Province, seems 
to be an inevitable necessity. I suppose it is fair to 
presume that our Church will before that time come 
to contain so many Bishops and clergy that there 



120 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



will be no possibility of a General Convention, which 
shall be constituted like ours at present. Of course, 
it is not likely that we shall have two thousand 
Bishops or, perhaps, a quarter of that number. 
And the number of Deputies may be reduced from 
four of each order in a Diocese to one of each order. 
And then our General Conventions will be no larger 
than some of the General Councils of the Early 
Church. 

I take no notice, in this connection, of what has 
been sometimes proposed and urged — a "propor- 
tionate representation" in our General Conventions. 
I consider such arguments as both faulty and futile, 
(i) They are futile, because the change cannot be 
effected without the consent of most or nearly all of 
the smaller Dioceses, and this consent cannot be 
reasonably expected. 

Then, in my judgment, the arguments in favor of 
such a plan are (2) faulty. They are based on what 
seems to me to be a false analogy. In the legisla- 
tion in the State, the fundamental axiom is"the great- 
est good of the greatest number." Here, " number" 
is a fundamental element and must be represented. 
But in the Church, the aim is, or should be, the 
"highest good of all." And for this purpose the 
wisdom and piety of a few, whether they be all of 
them, or none of them, from New York, is a vastly 
better guarantee than the clamor of a multi- 
tude. Not the wants of men but their wisdom and 



IN THE UNITED STATES. I2 i 

piety are what is requisite for the best Church legisla- 
tion. Wisdom may be defective ; but wants are often 
positively wrong. 

But the great difficulty, the serious problem 
for which no one has yet suggested a remedy 
or solution, so far as I know, is, to find some 
thing for the Provincial Councils to do that ought 
not to be either (i) left to the Bishops, each one, and 
his Diocese, or (2) to be left under the control of the 
General Convention. 

At the present time, our Church includes but a 
small part of the sixty or eighty millions of people 
in our country. It is a comparatively small body, but 
it is fast growing in numbers and influence. And I 
may be permitted to say that we may well lock for 
the time when the Papal Supremacy will be repudi- 
ated in this country, and in fact finally pass away, 
and the denominations cease to exist as separate 
bodies. In fact, Church Unity will become an accom- 
plished fact in this country; and our General Conven- 
tion, with its hundreds of Bishops and many more 
hundreds of Deputies, will become, practically, an 
unwieldly body. 

And yet, even this difficulty is not so great — so 
insuperable — as it appears to be at first sight. We 
have now about fifty Dioceses, with some sixty-five 
odd Bishops entitled to seats in, and as composing, 
our House of Bishops. Suppose these are increased 
by a division of existing Dioceses and the erection 



I2 2 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

of new ones out of territory not now occupied, so 
that we shall have three times as many, or about 
two hundred ? That will be only about two-thirds as 
many as were at the Council of Nice and scarcely 
one-third as many as there were at Chalcedon. 

With our fifty Dioceses and four Deputies of each 
order, there may be four hundred in the lower 
House. With only two of each order, there would 
be, of course, just half of that number. And with 
only one of each order and three times as many 
Dioceses there would be only three hundred in the 
lower House, which is by no means an unmanagable 
number. There were indeed but three hundred and 
eighteen Bishops at Nice ; but the other Clergy and 
Laity in attendance are usually thought to have 
made the whole number about two thousand. 

II. But what shall be left to the General Conven- 
tions, what to the Dioceses and what relegated to 
the Provincial Councils ? that is the great question. 

In State policy it is held that in a Kingdom or an 
Empire, size, beyond certain rather narrow limits, is 
an element of weakness and, precursor and cause of 
disruption. But in a Republic it is thought to be 
quite the reverse, the larger the stronger. And for 
the reason that only the few most general subjects 
of legislation are be provided for by the Central Gov- 
ernment ; while each of the States has full legisla- 
tive power and jurisdiction over all the questions 
that can need to be differently managed and admin- 
istered by different laws in the various localities. 



IN THE UNITED STATES. 



123 



And besides this, in the General Government 
there resides both the right and the power to enforce 
its laws by suppressing any effort that may be made 
towards insurrection or rebellion. 

But in the Church it is otherwise in this most im- 
portant particular. Any Province which has Bishops 
enough to be able to assert its independence may do 
for themselves all that any Church may do, all that 
even the General Convention of the National 
Church itself can do. It could not, indeed, depart 
from the Scriptures nor set forth a new Creed. But 
it could elect, and proceed to consecrate, its own 
Bishops, and thus not only perpetuate,but exaggerate 
any peculiarities which the majority of its Dioceses 
and Bishops might choose to make prominent or de- 
clare to be terms and conditions of communisn. 

There would be no remedy. We might have here, 
under our one National banner, Churches with 
"the Historic Episcopate" in unbroken and unques- 
tioned succession, differing as widely in doctrine 
and discipline (nearly, at least) as do the three or 
four great Branches of the Catholic Church, the Ro- 
man and the Anglican, the American, Austrian, and 
the Russian, at the present day. 

Suppose that New England, for example, should 
be one Province and the majority of the Bishops 
should become Unitarians or Mormoms, they might 
elect and consecrate Bishops holding their own 
views or refuse to consecrate anybody who did not. 



1 24 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

Truth is universal and Catholic, while error and 
heresy are local and predominate only at times 
and in places. 

With smaller Provinces, New York or Chicago, 
Virginia or Texas would have some hope and pros- 
pect of being able to control, each one its own 
Province, while no one of them has any expectation 
of being able to control the General Convention. 

A schism between several Provinces in our coun- 
try would be by no means as bad in its influence 
upon the people as that which now exists by having 
many bodies of Christians, each one claiming to be a 
legitimate Branch of the Church in the same town 
or city; the Provinces, whether more or less in num- 
ber, would of necessity be in different parts of our 
country. Nor is it likely, as it seems to me, that 
they would be so small in territory as to occasion 
the evils that now exist in the present state of 
things. 

It is, indeed, quite true that any three or four of 
our Dioceses may now secede from the General Con- 
vention on doctrinal or ritual ground and form them- 
selves into a Province. But in so doing they would 
commit the sin of Schism in its Scripture sense. 
And yet a General Convention, with all the Bishops 
we are likely to have, and one Deputy of each order 
from each Diocese would not be an altogether un- 
manageable body. 

III. One of the most common arguments that we 



IN THE UNITED ST A TES. 1 2 5 

have in favor of a sub-division of our Church into Pro- 
vinces, is the want of some means to restrain the 
eccentricities and irregularities that may arise in 
Dioceses from the independence, and what is called 
the autonomy, of our Bishops and Dioceses. 

But there are two sides to that question. As it 
is now, the evil is, or may be cured by the election 
of a successor when occasions occur. But in the 
case of smaller Provinces there would be danger that 
these evils would be enacted into laws in some of 
the smaller Provinces, at least. 

But these are facts calling for most careful and 
grave consideration before any final steps can be 
taken in the direction of any division into Provinces. 

In the Apostolic Canons, the words " Diocese" 
and " Province" do not occur. And this is one of 
the arguments — a controlling one, I think — for the 
great antiquity of these Canons. At any rate, there 
were many of them, at least, so old as to be called 
"ancient, * at the Council of Nice A. D. 325. 

This word Province means, gained by conquests, 
and at first indicated any portion of territory beyond 
Italy that was under Roman rule. But under the 
Empire all the conquered countries were organized 
into Provinces for the greater convenience of admin- 
istration. 

But the territory was not, then as it is now, divided 
up into Townships or Parishes. Each city claimed 
and was acknowledged to have jurisdiction over the 



126 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

country around it, its u suburbs," and this made its 
7rapoi/cia, Parish, and finally the city and its suburbs 
made up the Parish. But the suburbs of any city 
extended to the suburbs of the next city in each 
and all directions, so that the cities and their suburbs* 
or the Parishes, included all of the territory that was 
included within the domain of the nation or under 
its authority. And most frequently, and especially 
in its earlier stages, there was no fixed and well 
known limit or line of demarcation between them. 

The idea seems to have been that there should be 
one Bishop in each city, with Presbyters and Dea- 
cons such, and so many, as were necessary for the 
-Church-work with the three orders : St. Igna- 
tius (Bishop A. D. 67-107) says there is no Church, 
" or better," there is nothing that is called a Church, 
without them, eicic\ r qGia bv KaXerai. 

This testimony becomes the more important if we 
consider the following facts and cannot be fully ap- 
preciated without so doing. 

1. Antioch was at this time the great city of the 
East in a political point of view. It was nearly as 
large as Rome itself and the seat of the principal 
Power in the East, or in the words of Irenaeus, its 
" principality" was second only to that of Rome itself. 
Here the disciples were first called Christians. Here 
both St. Peter and St. Paul spent a large part of 
their time in building up the Church. And as we 
have seen, Antioch was the first of all the Sees to 



IN THE UNITED S TA TES. j 2 7 

put forth claims to a Primacy or Supremacy over 
the whole Church, such as Rome itself put forward 
only some two or three hundred years later. And 
Antioch with Alexandria were the first Sees to be 
rebuked by the General Councils Nice and Constan- 
tinople for this pretense. 

2. In the next place, Ignatius is said to have been 
made Bishop of Antioch by Sts. Peter and Paul. But 
at any rate he became Bishop of that See about A. 
D. 67. He was born six years before our Lord's 
crucifixion, became Bishop of Antioch before the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, and within a very few years 
after the death of James the brother of our Lord who 
was Bishop of Jerusalem, some twenty-five or thirty 
years before the death of St. John, who was living at 
Ephesus at the time and before, therefore, the last of 
the New Testament scriptures were written. 

No man, therefore, had, or could have had, better 
means of knowing the truth of what he said about 
the organization of the Church in his day, than St. 
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. 

But, as I have said, neither of the words " Province" 
nor " Diocese" occurs in the Apostolic Canons. 
And yet some such sub-division as these words indi- 
cate seems to have been implied. 

Canon xxxvii, directing that there shall be a meet- 
ing of " the Bishops twice a year," is vague in regard 
to the number of Bishops or the territory referred to. 
How many Bishops? The Bishops in what cities 



! 2 8 THE PRO VINCI AL SYSTEM 

or in what territory ? There is no indication. It is 
simply as I have quoted, " the Bishops must meet 
twice a year" for the settling of all ecclesiastical con- 
troversies that may have arisen. But several of the 
Canons imply and make it necessary that there 
should be " two or three" at least. Without this 
number nothing could be done. 

And frequently it would happen then as it does 
now in new countries, that a little settlement or ter- 
ritory that laid between two cities in " suburbs" of 
one or the other, or perhaps upon a spot that was 
not regarded as in or belonging to the jurisdiction 
of either one or the other of them, but was rather 
in the " neutral" ground that lay between the su- 
burbs, grow up into a city and assert its rights. In 
that case Church work would begin, a Church be or- 
ganized with its three orders and suburbs, also requir- 
ing the attention of the city clergy. 

The relation of the State to the Church in this 
country is such as it is no where else and as it never 
has been in any time past. From Pentecost until 
the conversion of Constantine, it was opposed by 
the State and most of the time under persecution, 
From that time onward the State has endeavored to 
control it under the pretense of protecting it. But 
in this country we have neither the one nor the 
other ; neither oppression nor " protection" to provide 
against. 

2. In the second place our Dioceses are, in many 



IN THE UNITED STATES. 



I29 



respects quite unlike the Dioceses in the Primitive 
Church (Parishes as they were then called, and we 
must remember that there were no Parishes then in 
our modern sense of the word). 

In each of our Dioceses we have Annual Conven- 
tions, composed of the Bishop, the Clergy of the 
Diocese, and Lay members. These Conventions 
make Canons which are obligatory on all Bishops, 
Clergy and Laity, just as the Canons of the Provin- 
cial Councils were in early times, on all persons in 
the Province. 

The introduction and recognition of the Lay 
men in all our Conventions, General and Diocesan, 
is an important element, and must be, to some ex- 
tent, a controlling one in all our plans for the future. 
It is unprecedented ; nothing like it has occurred 
in the past. And so complete and extensive is it in 
its influence, that no Law or Canon can be passed — 
nothing in fact can be done — without the concur- 
rence of the three orders, Bishop, Clergy and Laity. 
Each order has the right to a separate vote and 
has a check or negative on both the others. 

And our Bishops are under the Canons thus made. 
They must obey them and be guided by them as 
law, both the Canons of the General Convention and 
the Canons of the Diocesan Conventions, each in his 
own Diocese. 

3. We are all under the laws of the land, both for 
obedience and for protection, protection even in 



130 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



Church matters. If any one, Priest, Deacon or Lay- 
man suffers a wrong by any act or proceeding of his 
Bishop which is contrary to the Canons and Laws of 
the Church, and the Church in his Diocese he has 
a remedy in the courts of law if he chooses to pur- 
sue it before such a tribunal. 

But the fact that our Diocesan Conventions and 
the legislation that is had in them, composed as they 
are of the Clergy and representatives of the Laity of 
the Diocese have a binding force upon the Bishops, 
takes away much of the necessity or occasion for Prov- 
inces which shall consist of several Dioceses, making 
a Body that will stand some where between the Gen- 
eral Conventions on the one hand, and the Dioceses 
on the other. 

4. The whole process of making, administering 
and enforcing laws, both in Church and in State, is 
totally different from what it was in the days of the 
early Church legislation — so different as to make it 
difficult to reason from them to our times and to 
render many of the principles which were thought 
indispensable then inapplicable now. 

5. Then, undoubtedly, in view of the many de- 
nominations in our country and of the many godless 
unbelievers and scientific agnostics, the facts 
which are constantly being discovered, call for new 
explanations of Divine Truth, and for new lines of 
argument in defence of the Truth and the Church, 
which is " the Pillar and the ground of the Truth." 



IN THE UNITED STATES. ^ 

Events and changes, and adaptations which no one 
can foresee are undoubtedly in store for us in the 
future. 

The question is, as I have said, a grave one, and I 
shall make no attempt at its solution. But it is be- 
fore us and must be met, either by sound and devout 
men guided by the Holy Spirit of God, or by that 
over-ruling Providence which, in the history of Na- 
tions as well as in the affairs of men, "works all 
things after Counsels of its own will." 

IV. I have said that it is not my purpose in this 
Essay to discuss, to any considerable extent, ques- 
tions of Church Unity, or rather the unification of 
those who profess to believe in our common Saviour 
and to be His Disciples. 

But in view of the facts already presented, I think 
that in any sub-divisions of our National Church into 
several Provinces, there is great danger of a total 
isolation of the Provinces. 

But I think we may reasonbly look for a Church 
Unity that will involve (i) a total rejection of the 
Papal Supremacy in this country and over professing 
Christians in it, and (2) the acceptance of " the His- 
toric Episcopate" by all of the Protestant Denomi 
nations around us, not, indeed, that they will come 
into the Unity of the Church as organized bodies, 
but their members will come individually, one by 
one. 

I have already alluded to the fact that there is no- 



I32 7 HE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

where in the Scriptures any full account of the or- 
ganization of the Church. From this, many people 
of our day have drawn the inference that the form 
of organization is not important, that, therefore, any 
considerable number of believers may organize 
themselves into a Branch of the Church, ova Church 
as they please. 

But the fact was, and is, that the Church was not 
organized by its members at all ; but by those whom 
our Lord had appointed for that purpose. It was 
therefore to them a matter of fact, which they all 
might know, and probably did know, and therefore 
it needed no description. 

Unlike the Jewish Dispensation, the Christian 
Church was for " all Nations" and " until the end of 
time." Most of the details of its organization and the 
worship of the Christian Church, therefore, could not 
be prescribed in the words of Holy Scriptures, but 
must be left to the Apostles and their successors 
wherever and whenever " two or three" of them 
might be gathered together in His name. 

But in the Christian Dispensation there can be no 
need or occasion for another Church than that which 
He founded, and no desire for one so far as I can see, 
so long as people are content with the Faith, which the 
Church teaches or was commanded to teach. And 
if the Branch of the Church which is in the nation 
where one has his lot in life cast has fallen into error, 
and that is certainly very possible, it wouid seem to 



IX THE UNITED STATES. 



133 



be his duty, not to leave it, but follow the example of 
our Lord Himself and His Apostles, remain in it and 
do all he can to reform it and bring it to the Bible 
standard. 

It is not merely that men must have some religion 
and that to have religion they must have some or- 
ganization, and in this organization there must be 
not only some argreement among the members, but 
there must be some yielding of private opinions 
and preferences. No two or more can unite and be 
"a church" with worship and any administration of 
the Sacrmaents, without going beyond what is actu- 
ally prescribed in Holy Scripture. 

And there is no help for it. Not even two can 
walk together unless they are agreed. And they 
cannot be " agreed" so as to walk together for any 
long time unless there is some recognized authority 
to determine for them how they shall go in matters 
in regard to which they have irreconcilable differ- 
ences of opinion, or have differences of tastes and 
mental constitutions, so that that which will please the 
one is sure to displease the other. Even with but 
" two or three" there must be an authority, some- 
where, to guide their actions. 

They cannot " agree to disagree," in matters of 
religion, and go on each one in his own way. This 
they may do as citizens and get along very well. 
But as Christians it would be utter isolation ; it 
would be going beyond the most extremes of Inde- 



134 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



pendence, or Congregationalism. It would not have 
even the " two or three" spoken of in the Scripture ; 
for they must " agree" or be agreed upon what- 
ever they would ask, if it is to be done for them in 
heaven, as well as upon whatever they would" bind" 
or " loose" as a matter of Church discipline, if it is 
to have any validity or force, be " loosed" or 
"bound in heaven." 

And for this very adjudication and adaptation of 
the Church, its principles and methods of teaching the 
fundamental truths of the Gospel to the peculiarities 
of our times, it seems to me that we can see the 
hand of God in keeping us, for the present, as one 
Province, with but our one Provincial Synod or 
General Convention, in order that we may have that 
conservative and cautious wisdom that comes, 
and can come, only from a multitude of Coun- 
sellors. " Two or three" may do for unimportant 
details, but for such grave matters a large Council 
seems to be necessary. 

V. But in any concessions we may see it neces- 
sary or feel disposed to make we must see to it that 
we do not pander to and so increase the very feeling 
and spirit of sectarianism which we are trying to 
cure and eradicate from among us. 

The spirit of sectarianism is that spirit of heresy — 
schism— leading to apostacy and to anti-Christ, that 
is spoken of in the Scriptures, by which one is led to 
hold an opinion and practice as ritual or discipline 



IN THE UNITED STATES, 



135 



that which he chooses or prefers, rather than that 
which the Church holds as taught by the Holy- 
Scripture and because it is so taught. When one 
offends in this matter or manner, we are taught by 
our Lord, what to think of him and what to do with 
and how to regard him. 

Church authority, as exercised by a Provincial 
Synod or under its Canons, is not only an element 
of Christianity, but respect for it, and obedience to 
it is one element of the Christian character. It may 
lead to error and superstition. But the want of it 
is certainly a very serious defect. The want of it 
implies the presence and excess of that spirit of self 
and self assertion which lies at the foundation of, and 
is the moving spirit to, if not the very gravamen of 
all disobedience and rebellion against God. 

I have spoken of the authority that was given to 
the Apostles, when " two or three" of them should be 
gathered together in His name to bind and loose, 
that is, as I understand it, to make rules or Canons, 
that should have a binding authority on those that 
were in the Church subject to their jurisdiction. 
And this too I would take to mean any Branch of 
the Church which has the right to be and to act as 
a Province by itself. 

The words used by St. John, " whosever sins ye 
remit they are remitted to them, and whosoever sins 
ye retain they are retained," (John xx. 23,) I take to 
have only a limited signification, for none can forgive 
sins but God only. 



136 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



Whoever was converted and baptised had their 
sins remitted to them. They were forgiven all the 
past and put on the same conditions with regard to 
the past as if they had not descended from Adam, 
or been sinners of the Gentiles, participating in their 
idolatry and abominations. Their past sins were 
forgiven," remitted unto them," and grace was given 
them for the future. 

And so, on the other hand, if they should not 
keep the faith and continue to walk in the way of 
salvation, the authorities of the Church had the 
right, after a first and second admonition, to reject 
them, (Tit. iii. 10 ;) cast them out, so that they 
should be as heathen men and publicans— their sins 
would be retained. 

Our Lord prayed for His people, for them that 
should believe on Him through the word that His 
ministry should preach, that they all may be one, 
that the world might believe. We see the effect of 
this want of unity every where around us and in our 
midst. It is, in some of its aspects, like the believ- 
ing in many Gods and the having of idol temples, 
and the worship of idols among the ancient Jews. 
It not only led away from the worship of the 
one true and only God, causing infidelity and unbe- 
lief, but it immensely weakened the moral effect of 
that religion and worship, even among those who 
remained true to the Mosaic doctrine of one God. 

And it would appear from the history of the 



IN THE UNITED STATES. 



137 



Prophets that it was about as difficult to persuade 
the people, or even to make them understand, that 
there is but one God who has created all things, 
and who alone is the proper Object of worship, as it 
is to persuade the people of our day that there is but 
one Church that is built on the one Foundation, 
and that of this Church, while there may be many 
Branches differing widely, perhaps, in different coun- 
tries, there can be no two Branches in the same com- 
munity or Province, without one of them being 
guilty of heresy, or schism, or perhaps both. 

VI. There is one thought more that occurs in 
this connection and seems very appropriate to the 
occasion. 

We find nothing in the Holy Scriptures or in the 
early Canons, in favor of what is called, in these 
modern times and in our country, Diocesan inde- 
pendence. The authority to make laws was not to 
each Apostle or Bishop by himself, or for his Dio- 
ceses, but it was where two or three of them were 
gathered together in " His Name." 

And in the early Church we find most abundant 
proof of Provincial independence ; but none, what- 
ever, of Diocesan independence. 

Doubtless, some of the details of worship, instruc- 
tion, and discipline were left to each Bishop; but for 
the most part, everything was regulated by the Pro- 
vincial Synod, And even the Bishops were 
restrained, to a considerable extent, from doing any- 



1 3 8 THE PRO VINCI A L S VST EM 

thing without the consent and approval, if not the 
direct instructions and command, of the Metropolitan. 

We hear much said, in our day and country, about 
the rights of the Dioceses, and what rights they 
surrendered to the General Convention and what 
rights they reserved to themselves. But we find 
nothing in the Scriptures, nor in the Canons of the 
early Church, to afford any support to such a view. 
In them, or as represented by them, in their estima- 
tion all authority is from above, and comes from God 
and from Christ, the Head of the Church. So that 
whatever authority a Provincial Synod or any General 
Convention may have, comes from the succession of 
Bishops, and not from the people or the Dioceses. 

In fact there were no Diocesan organizations, in 
our s~:ise of the word, in the Primitive Church, so 
far as I have been able to find. The authority, so 
far as we can see, was given by our Lord Himself 
to St. Peter first, (Math , xiv. 16,) and afterwards to 
all the Apostles equally and alike. (Math., xvii. 18 ; 
John xx. 29-24.) Afterwards, Mathias was elected 
to the number, and St. Paul was miraculously called. 
And they seem to have had, and exercised, equal 
authority with the original Twelve. 

But when the Church was established in any city, 
we find, whenever we can find enough to enable us 
to say anything about it, that there were three orders, 
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. St. Ignatius, who 
lived as contemporary with St. John, and possibly 



IN THE UNITED ST A TES. 



139 



died before St. John did, says that there is no Church 
without the three orders, or strictly, it " is not called 
a Church," or still more strictly, perhaps, " a 
Church is not said to be there." 

But the Bishop, with his Clergy and Lay brethren 
who made up his Diocese or Parish, never assembled 
as a Convention or Synod, so far as we know. The 
Bishop had certainly a certain power of directing 1 
the affairs of his Diocese ; about as much, and so far 
as we can see, just the same as is implied in our Offi- 
ces when Deacons and Priests, in their ordina- 
tion, promise submission and obedience to " the 
godly admonitions" of their Bishop, while both he 
and they are under the Laws and Canons of the 
Church. 

No ; the smallest sub-divisions of the Church that 
existed in the early times, for any legislative pur- 
poses, so far as we know, are the Provinces. And 
in each of them, long before the Council of Nice, (A. 
D. 325,) there were Provincial Synods held, when 
practicable, twice every year. (Apost. Can, xxxvii). 

Of the political Provinces, as we have seen, there 
were in the Roman Empire one hundred and eigh- 
teen. We have forty-two States in our Union. 
Consequently our States are, on the average, about 
three times as large as their Provinces, But in each 
of the political Provinces, there must have been, at 
least, three Bishops or Dioceses, in our sense of the 
word, in order to have any legislation, " the binding 
of anything on earth that should be bound in Heaven." 



T 4 q THE PR O VINCI A L S YSTEM 

In this respect the Church is just the reverse of 
the State. In the State, according to the theory in 
our country, all authority resides in the people and 
comes from them, so that the officers whom we elect 
are our agents, and derive whatever authority they 
may have from us, the people. But in the Church it 
is just the reverse. All authority comes from God — 
and from Christ through the Ministry of His ap- 
pointment — " the Historic Episcopate;" so that 
obedience and submission to God, implies within cer- 
tain limits, submission and obedience to them, and 
conversely, within those proper limits, obedience and 
submission to them, is obedience and submission to 
Him. 

VII. I have said nothing about the Papal Su- 
premacy in this country, or the rights of the Papal 
adherents here. But we have seen : 

1. That there is not the slightest indication of 
any Supremacy of St. Peter over the rest of the 
Apostles, or over the Church at large in the Holy 
Scriptures — but quite the contrary. 

2. That in the passage most relied upon (Math, 
xvi. 18-20,) there is no mention of Rome or of any 
possible Bishops it may have, or of any continuance 
of the prerogative here given St. Peter, whatever 
it may have been, in any of the Bishops of the Church, 
whether at Antioch or Alexandria, at Rome, or at 
New York. 

3. We have seen that the Church in its General 



IN THE UNITED STATES, l ^ l 

Councils, not only restricted trie efforts of the 
Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria to extend their 
authority and their jurisdiction over Churches that 
had not from the beginning belonged to them, but 
it also, in the Council of Ephesus, enacted, in the 
most solemn manner, that if any Bishop should try 
to extend his jurisdiction, or if any Provincial Coun- 
cil should make any rule or excuse to that effect, or 
for that purpose, it should be of no force or validity 
whatever. 

Hence, I believe, of course, as I have said, that in 
due time the Papacy will be a thing of the past ; in 
due time, that is, as soon as it has done its work in 
preparing the Western part of the Christian world 
for something better; just as the Jewish Kingdom, 
with its Kings from Saul and David down, prepared 
the World for the true King — the King of Kings — 
and then passed away. 

I have made no effort to prove that Episcopacy, 
in our modern sense of the word, was a part of the 
original constitution of the Church which Christ and 
His Apostles built on the Rock of Faith, or that it, 
in itself, and intrinsically, or by Divine right and 
necessity is permanently binding on the Church, so 
that there can be no valid ordination or ministry 
without it. But, what I say is, that we have no ac- 
count of any Church that was organized 'on the Presby- 
terian or Congregationalists, plan. We hear of Chris- 
tians and "Churches," in fact, in many places where 



j 42 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

the organization was incomplete, or nothing, and of 
many more of whose organization, if they had any, 
we know nothing. 

1. We have the assertion of St. Ignatius, who suf- 
fered martyrdom about the time of the death of St. 
John, that at that time there was no Church without 
the three orders, or rather, to use his exact expres- 
sion, without the three " it is not called a Church." 

And, if anybody knew at that early time, St. Igna- 
tius did. He had known St. John, was Bishop of 
Antioch, the place where the disciples were first 
called Christians, and the place which then, and for 
more than a century afterwards, was, more than any 
other, the centre of unity and held a Primacy over 
all the Church, and all the Bishops of the Church. 

2. In the next place, the first of the Canons pro- 
viding for the succession of the Bishops, allows of, 
and recognizes, no ordinations except those per- 
formed by Bishops, whether of Presbyters, Deacons, 
or any of the inferior Clergy, as Singers,Deaconesses, 
and such like grades in the Divine Service. 

But all these "Denominations," with their church 
organizations, must, like the Papacy, come to an 
end, when, and as fast as the " true Church idea," 
as I have tried to set it forth in these pages, gains 
entrance into the minds, and its place as a controlling 
influence over the hearts of men, in this, our country, 
and among the nations of the world, in this, our 
nineteenth century, and the coming centuries, until 



V 



IN THE UNITFD STATES, i^ 

there shall be one Church in a place, and all the 
Churches and the Provinces in the world, however 
independent in themselves, shall be the One Fold 
under the One and Only Shepherd and Saviour of 
Souls. And, then, we shall have, as will be manifest 
to all persons, One Lord, One Faith, and One Bap- 
tism. 

VIII. And I know of no New Testament au- 
thority that clearly justifies believers in withdrawing 
from the Church, or any Branch or Province of it. 
The only one that occurs to me that has ever been 
cited, so far as I can recollect, is Rev. xviii. 4. But 
this is of doubtful interpretation. Of late years, and 
among Protestants, Babylon has been supposed to 
mean " the Church of Rome." But a still more 
recent interpretation, and one which seems to be 
now coming into favor, is that Babylon meant Jeru- 
salem, especially, as it was after it had rejected its 
Messiah and assumed the attitude of persecution of 
those who believed in Him. And, as we know, be- 
lievers did retire from Jerusalem, so that none of 
them were there to suffer the awful calamities of its 
siege and fall. 

But, even on the supposition that it means Rome, 
I am by no means inclined to say that if I were 
living in France, Italy, Spain, or any of the countries 
where the Church acknowledges the Papal Suprem- 
acy, I should feel obliged to leave the Church, "come 
out of her." But this can have no application to the 



144 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



English Church, or to the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States. 

But the fact is that the great mass of our people 
never study the Scriptures, or even read them, in a 
proper spirit, or with any legitimate purpose in 
view. 

Critics and Skeptics read them to find fault with 
them, and excuses for their own unbelief and 
irreligion. 

And professing Christians but too often, and for 
the most part, read and re-read favorite passages, 
often in total ignorance of other parts which are in 
some respects, quite possibly, of greater importance 
to the object in regard to which they most espec- 
ially need to know what they contain. 

And even their clergy are often astonishingly 
ignorant of what, it would seem, it most behooves 
them to know. Thus an eminent Congregationalist 
Minister, in a Book which has reached the fourth 
edition, says (p. 43):" we find no evidence in His 
word that our Lord ever designed to form a Church 
or general organization of believers." And yet, we 
have, Math. xvi. 16, in the Gospels. A Baptist 
Preacher, not long since, denied that anywhere in 
the Scriptures, was any connection of regeneration 
with the use of water. I quoted (John iii. 3): ■' Ex- 
cept a man be born again, of water and of the Spirit, 
he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." He said 
there were no such words in the Scriptures, and ac- 



IW THE UNITED ST A TES. 



145 



cused me of falsifying the Gospels. I quoted to a 
Presbyterian, a Calvanist, the words, (1 Tim. ii. 4,) 
" God will have all men to be saved, and to come to 
the knowledge of the truth." He had never noticed 
the text before, and doubted if it could be found in 
Holy Scripture at all. Even a Romish Priest was 
delighted v/ith the the text, "Arise, be baptised, and 
wash away thy sins." (Acts xxii. 16.) But he had 
never seen it before and did not know where it 
could be found. 

For the great mass of men, now, as in the days of 
our Lord — some divine influence, like that of which 
He spoke when he said, " and if I be lifted up on 
the Cross will draw all men to me" — some emana- 
tion from the Cross touches their hearts. We can 
not always, or often, tell how, and they go, as did 
those who were living in His time, to Him, or rather, 
to some one who professes to teach in his Name, for 
guidance. 

I have taken a good deal of pains to set forth in 
this Essay, the fact, that the Holy Scriptures do 
not represent God as requiring faith only, but obe- 
dience as well. Faith, without a full knowledge or 
comprehension of what we believe, is indeed pos- 
sible, and in fact it is, to some extent, a matter of 
necessity. But faith, without charity and obedience, 
is surely of but very little value in a spiritual point 
of view. 

I believe it to be a growing policy and conviction 



I/{ 6 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

among all Christian men, and all denominations, 
and creeds, that we want both more faithful and ex- 
plicit teaching on the part of the Clergy — and also 
more of the spirit of docility and submission, and 
obedience on the part of the people. We must 
walk by faith if we are to make progress upwards, 
and towards anything that is better than what this 
world affords. And faith implies to that extent, 
both docility and obedience, and docile following on 
to know if we would come to know the truth of our 
Lord's teaching. " If any man will do His, he shall 
know of the doctrine," (John vii. 17,) by his expe- 
rience in consequence of his obedience. 

Since the paragraps pp. 1 21-122, were in type, 
one of the wisest of our Presbyters, who was a 
trained lawyer before he came into the Church or 
its Ministry, and with whom I have had frequent 
conversations on the subject, has suggested, as a 
solution of the difficulty there stated, that our Dio- 
cesan Conventions give up, entirely, their Canon- 
making power and relegate all of this part of 
their functions to the Provincial synods. 

This is, certainly, a practicable scheme, and one, 
too, which our wise men may find themselves com- 
pelled to adopt. We should then have (1) one Gen- 
eral Convention once, say, in ten years, with ail the 
Bishops and one or two Deputies from each order. 
(2) Provincial Synods, with perhaps ten Provinces, 



IN THE UNITED STA TES. 



147 



or possibly more, in time, meeting with four or more 
Deputies from each order, the two bodies sustaining 
to each other much the same relation to the mak- 
ing of Canons that our state Governments do to the 
General Government at Washington, in regard to 
the laws of our land. 

Then, in the third place, we should have Diocesan 
Conventions once a year, as now, meeting to dis- 
cuss and to provide for and manage the financial 
affairs and the missionary work of the Church within 
the Diocese, very much the same as our Conventions 
do now when there is no change in their Canons to 
be made. 

I confess, that the more I think of this plan, it 
seems to me the best, if not the only one, that has 
been suggested. And not only the best, but also 
practically feasible. For I can well imagine that 
our Clergy and Laity would consent to give up what 
of the right to make Canons in their Diocesan Con- 
ventions they now exercise, in view of the many 
advantages of such a Provincial System in which, of 
course, they could have a much larger representa- 
tion than they now have in the General Convention. 

And then, too, this plan would allow of "Propor- 
tionate Representation" in our Provincial Councils, 
much like that of the States in Congress. 



CHAPTER VI. 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM AS A BASIS OF UNION. 

This work was begun and written, though, in the 
first draught of it, with the sole aim indicated by 
the printed title, " The Papal Supremacy and the 
Provincial System." But, as I read it over, ques- 
tions and suggestions with regard to the subject, 
just now so much talked about, " Church Unity" 
were constantly arising, and I inserted, occasion- 
ally, a new paragraph with reference to its bearing 
on what was before me, on that subject. 

I. The circular that was issued by the General 
Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church at 
its last meeting — 1886 — and adopted by the Pan- 
Anglican Council, 1888, has received a very exten- 
sive attention. The four terms of union there pro- 
posed were, (1) the Holy Scriptures ; (2) the Apos- 
tles' and Nicene Creeds ; (3) the two Sacraments, 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper, duly administered ; 
and (4) " the Historic Episcopate," 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM AS A BASIS OF UNION. 



149 



And I suppose that there was implied, though it 
is not specified, Confirmation, or the Laying on of 
Hands, by some Bishop in the line of " the Historic 
Episcopate;" since no Church that has that Episco- 
pate admits persons to the Holy Communion with- 
out it. 

I suppose that in view of these conditions, two 
facts are inevitable. 

1. There can be no organized union with any of 
the Protestant Denominations as a body, because (a) 
they have not the Historic Episcopate, and (b) they 
have not, and do not practice, the right of Confir- 
mation. 

2. If they are ever to be brought into the Unity 
of the Church," it must be, for the most part, one 
by one, and individually, as the result of investiga- 
tion and conviction, and they get imbued with " the 
Church Idea." 

The process must, therefore, be rather slow. But 
these persons are coming, one by one, about as fast 
as we can safely receive them. In 1886-7, there 
were, of clergymen, thirty, whose names were re- 
ported, namely, Methodists, eight ; Roman Catholics, 
four ; Congregationalists,/0&r / Baptists, four ; Pres- 
byterians, three ; of the smaller denominations, seven. 
During the year 1887-8, there were twenty-seven, 
namely,Methodist, eight ; Baptist, five ; Roman Cath- 
olic, four ; Presbyterians, three ; Congregationalists, 
two; other denominations jfo^. 



ISO 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



And this is about the average rate at which their 
preachers are coming into our Ministry. And we 
lose, as going out from us, hardly so much as one in 
the year on the average. 

There are five Dioceses in this State of New 
York, each with its Bishop, making five in all. But 
of these five, only two were born from parents who 
were in our Church. And one of them, certainly, 
and, as I think, two of them, had been preachers in 
other Denominations. Of the clergy in this city, 
(Syracuse,) engaged in ministerial work, ten in all, 
four had been preachers in other Denominations be- 
fore they came into our Church, two were sons of 
Episcopal Clergymen, and as to the other four, I do 
not know what their antecedents may have been. 

And, if I may speak of my own experience, I 
would say, that I have had about forty men under 
my instruction who were preparing for the Ministry. 
Of this number, four were ordained to the Espisco- 
pate, two of whom were, and the other two were not, 
brought up in the Church. Of the whole number, 
five had been preachers in other Denominates. Pre- 
cisely how many had been brought up in the Church, 
I do not know, but my impression is, that about one 
half of them had not, but had come into the Church 
as the result of investigation and conviction. 

And, so far as the Laity are concerned, there are 
reasons for believing that at least one-half of our 
communicants are descended from those who were 



AS A BASIS OF UNION. ^ 

not members of our Church at all, and a very large 
share have come to us after having been recognized 
as " members" in the various Denominations around 
us. 

The statistics show, that while the population of 
our country increased, during the fifty years from 
1 830-1 880, at the rate of 3.46 per cent, each year, 
our Church has increased at the rate of 6.4, or about 
twice as fast as the population of the country. 

These facts, and statistics, show the tendency of 
things. If we, of " the Protestant Episcopal CliarcJi" 
are a legitimate Branch of the Church which our 
Blessed Lord founded, having rightful jurisdiction 
in this country, this tendency is in the right direc- 
tion and foretells the ultimate result. But if we 
are not, we are in a state of schism against Christ 
and His Church, and have no right to continue to 
exist as a separate body or organization of persons 
claiming to be disciples of Christ. 

II. I am well aware that this is not in accordance 
with the sentiment that prevails in our community. 
But, I believe it is not only in accordance with, but 
that it is, in fact, the only teaching of the Holy 
Scriptures on the subject. 

In that Volume, the word " Church" is used in 
the singular, to denote: 

1. An Institution, as when our Lord said to 
Peter, on "this Rock I will build my Church." And, 
again, when St. Paul speaks of the Church as that 



152 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



by which " is made known" to the world " the man- 
ifold wisdom of God," (Eph. iii. 10,) and, again, 
" the Church of the living God, which is the Pillar 
and ground of the Truth," (Tim. iii. 15). 

2. Then, again, the word is used to denote the 
collective Body of the believers as in Acts ii. 47, 
"the Lord added to the Church, daily, such as 
should be sound." And, as where St. Paul says, 
" God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, 
secondly Prophets, thirdly Teachers" (1 Cor. xii. 28). 

3. In a few places, the word may mean, as it 
does sometimes now, the place, or building, in which 
Christians held their meetings for worship and edi- 
fication. (Acts xix. 39 ; I Cor. vi. 8 ; xiv. 28-35.) 

4. But when the word is used in the plural, as 
" churches," it denotes bodies of Christians who lived 
in different cities or Provinces, and were different 
bodies of believers only because they were living in 
different cities or Provinces. 

It is, indeed, quite true that we have some indi- 
cations in the Holy Scriptures, and more in the early 
Church History, of a disagreement between the 
Gentile and the Jewish converts, just as there is 
now, between the whites and the blacks in our 
Southern states. But they had no organizations, 
constituted no separate Churches, or denominations, 
in our modern sense of the word. 

And, in fact, there could be no such division. If 
false apostles and false prophets came to them, they 



AS A BASIS OF UNION. j^ 

were to be avoided. If even an angel from heaven 
should preach any " other Gospel" than the One 
the Christians in any city or place had received, he 
was to be " accursed." And if it was the same, 
there could be no need of another organization or 
denomination ; to have another or to be separate, 
therefore, implied "another Gospel, or schism in the 
Body of Christ." 

5. Besides, the word " Church" is used in the 
New Testament, twice at least, in senses somewhat 
different from either of those above given, (a) In 
Acts xix. 39, it is used to denote a court, or political 
body, translated "assembly", {a) In Heb. xii. 23, it is 
said to denote those who are already in Heaven. 

But when used to denote persons on earth 
who profess to be Christians, it denotes a visible 
body, and if they are Christians, it is the Church of 
which believers were made members by their Bap- 
tism, and in full communion, to which they were ad- 
mitted by Confirmation or "the laying on of hands." 
No others are reckoned as Christians or Disciples, 
or members of the Church at all, or in any sense. 

I can see no way, therefore of evading this issue. 
If there is more than one religous organization in the 
same Province so different in their Doctrines that 
they are not in communion with each other, on ac- 
count of differences in Doctrine, one of them is in 
heresy. If there is no difference in their Doctrinal 
Standard, which they regard as essential, then one or 



!ij4 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

the other is in a state of schism, as against one another 
and the Body of Christ. And if they have not the 
"Historic Episcopate," they maybe in the condition 
of those who build on " another foundation" than 
that which is laid (i Cor. iii. 2) " the foundation of 
the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself, 
being the chief corner stone." (Eph. ii. 20.) 

In a supernciai view of the subject, (and this is as 
far as many persons go in the matter,) the chief ob- 
jection to so many Denominations and the prevailing 
one is, it takes three or four times as many clergymen 
who must be supported as would be needed, if all 

were united in one Denomiation or Church. 

» 

But, on a deeper look into the subject, it is seen that 
not the Church only, but Christianity itself, looses 
the prestige it would otherwise have, and one of the 
greatest elements of its power, nearly all its power 
in a human sense, by these divisions. 

The majority of our people do not profess to be 
Christians at all, either to believe its distinctive doc- 
trines, or to acknowledge its claim to divine origin 
and authority. And the mass of our young men, 
and women, too, 1 fear, are growing up without any 
sense of, or belief in, any over-ruling Providence, of 
any moral government of God in this world or in any 
life of rewards and retribution in the next. 

It has even been claimed that the saloons con- 
trol more votes and exert more powerful influence 
in our public affairs than the Churches. 



AS A BASIS OF UNION, j^ 

The consequence is an abandonment to all those 
natural impulses which St. Paul speaks of as the 
"carnal nature" and "the life of the flesh which is 
enmity against God." 

It is true that we reject the Pope, but not the 
Bishop of Rome, as Metropolitan of the Province, 
nor yet as Patriarch of the old " Diocese," or Pat- 
riarchate within its proper limits. What we reject, 
is the claim to Supremacy over the whole Church 
and his right to interfere with our Province. France 
and Spain-, Germany and Portugal must do as they 
please- — it is their affair and not ours. But we reject 
it not only because we find no proof of it in the 
Scriptures, but the contrary, and because the Ancient 
Church protested against it, resisted it, and pro- 
vided in its Provincial System for all that it claims to 
have been authorized to do. 

III. And, in this view, the Church in each Na- 
tion or Province must claim for itself, assert and 
exercise the authority that, as we have seen, was 
given to it by our Lord Himself for this very pur- 
pose, and do for the people in that Province or Nation 
all, and whatever could be necessary for the full 
publication and administration of the Gospel and 
other means of Salvation, if indeed there are any. 

And it is on this ground, and this ground only, that 
the claims and exercise of any Papal influence or 
authority beyond the mere Metropolitan jurisdic- 
tion and the Patriarchal precedence that was acknowl 



I 56 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

edged to belong to it, or accorded to it, by the Ca- 
nons of the Primitive Church, can be at all justified. 
It was amaxin of the Roman law. Salus Reipublicce 
est suprema lex. Whatever is necessary to the salva- 
tion of the Nation is above all law, or, rather, is, it- 
self, the supreme law. Possibly, something of the 
kind may be said of the Papal Supremacy. And it 
has doubtless occurred in times past and may not un- 
likely, occur even now, to many minds as a means of 
justification for their continuing to submit to it and 
to advocate its exercise. 

It has sometimes been found neccessary to put 
even innocent men into prison as the best means of 
protecting them from the violence of the mob. But 
this has never been considered a sufficient reason for 
keeping them there after the danger had passed 
away. 

But if the view that I have suggested as, doubt- 
less, occurring to the minds of intelligent Romanists 
severally, that the only alternate is between Roman- 
ism with the Papal obedience on the one hand, and 
irreligion and total rejection of Christ and Christianity 
on the other, there may be, and, in fact, there are, 
grave reasons for. hesitation and deliberation in mak- 
ing a choice. 

Our Lord, in that most pathetic Prayer uttered in 
the night in which He was betrayed, said : "Neither 
pray I for these alone, but for them also that shall 
believe on me through their word, that they all may 



AS A BASIS OF UNION. 



157 



be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that 
they also may be one in us, that the world may believe 
that thou hast sent me." (John xvii. 23.) 

What this "oneness" is, St. Paul has, as I think, 
fully indicated. When he said, " there is One Body 
and One Spirit, even as ye are called in one Hope 
of our calling One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, 
One God and Father of all. (" Eph. iv. 4-6.) And 
a little further on,(iv. 11 ) the Apostle says that our 
Lord appointed (gave) a ministry in divers orders, 
" some Apostles, Prophets, Evanglists, Pastors, and 
Teachers" — " for the work of the Ministry and for 
the edifying (or building up) the Church," both in 
numbers and in the graces of the Christian character 
and spirit which is the "One Body" of Christ. 

Nor is this all, the errors and " sins" by which 
divisions in, or secessions from, this One Body, which 
is expressly declared to be the Church, are spoken 
of and classed among the work of the flesh, (Gal. v. 
20,) and all believers are warned against them. (Rom 
xvi. 17; 1 Cor. i. 10, xi. 18-16; 2 Pet. ii. 1.) 

1. In the strictest sense of the word " heresy," is 
the holding of an opinion that differs from the doc- 
trine taught by the Church. Thus, Our Lord Him- 
self was a " heretic," in reference to the teachings of 
the Jewish Church in His day. (Math, xxiii. 1-5.) 
St. Paul confesses that "after the way which they call 
heresy, so worship, I the God of my fathers." (Acts, 
xxiv. 14.) 



153 



THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 



Heresy, that is, technical heresy, does not, in 
itself, imply anything that is wrong. If the Church, 
or that Branch of it which has jurisdiction in the 
country to which we belong, teaches errors, it is bet- 
ter to be a " heretic" than not ; if by so doing we 
hold the truth as it is in Jesus, " the Faith once de- 
livered to the saints." 

2. Schism, on the other hand, is a division and 
alienation from one another among those who are 
" One Body" or ought to be, in faith and worship. 

Thus St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians (i Cor. 
iii. 3,) says there is among you " envying and strife, 
and divisions" (separations into parties or denomin- 
ations). " One saith I am of Paul ; another, I am 
of Apollos." It seems that this tendency to 
schism or division was pretty general, for St. Paul 
says, (i Cor. i. 12,) " Every one of you saith I am of 
Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas — 
(Peter) and I of Christ. " 

And a little further on he says, (i Cor. xi. 18,) 
" I hear that there are divisions (schisms) among you 
and I partly believe it, for there must be also heresies 
(or sects) among you that they which are approved 
may be made manifest amongyou." Doubtless, there- 
fore, those who were not among the "approved" were 
at fault. 

This distinction and difference, however, between 
"heresy" and "schism," word and thing, has not 
always been observed in the Church or by Church 



AS A BASIS OF UNION. 



I 59 



writers. Thus the Council of Constantinople (A. D. 
381-Can. vi.) says that it regards as '• heretics," and 
calls by that name not only those that had been 
previously excommunicated, but also "those that do, 
indeed, pretend to confess the sound faith, but have 
separated themselves and formed congregations in op- 
position to our Convincial Bishops", or as some 
read, " the Bishops who are in communion with us." 
IV. Besides this, there are two or three other 
things to be noticed. 

1. The first, is the fact that we are forewarned 
against false teachers ; and " false teachers who will 
bring in damnable heresies." (1 Pet. ii. I.) " Now 
the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times 
some shall depart from the Faith, "(1 Tim. iv. I,) not 
able to endure sound doctrine ; " they will heap to 
themselves teachers" (2 Tim. iv. 3) such as they pre- 
fer. 

2. St. Paul, in his second Epistle to the Thessa- 
lonians (iii. 3-13) says that in the future there will 
come " a falling away" (from the Faith, I think) and 
the " Man of Sin will be revealed" — who will deceive 
the people " with all power and signs, and lying 
wonders, and with all the deceivableness of unright- 
eousness." 

I will make no attempt to show who and what was 
meant by this" Man of Sin." But I remark in pas- 
sing, that, most assuredly, it was not the Church or 
the Ministry, which our Lord appointed in the Church, 



l6o THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

while confining themselves to their appropriate 
sphere of preaching the Gospel and administering 
the Sacraments, the Worship and the Discipline of 
the Church. 

It may have been (a) the persecuting civil rulers of 
Rome before the conversion of Constantine; (J?) it may- 
have been the professing " Christian" Rulers who, 
after that conversion, under pretense of "protecting" 
the Church, sought to control it and use it for their 
own selfish and ambitious ends ; (c) the Papal Suprem- 
acy with its assumptions and corrupt teachings, or 
(d) finally, it may have been modern sectarianism, 
dividing believers into Sects and Denominations each 
with its own preferences. 

3. Then, thirdly, in the writings of St. John there 
is a special prediction of Anti-Christ, (1 John ii. 18- 
20,) or the Beast. (Rev. xiii-xix). 

Here, again, I shall make no effort to show who, 
or what was specifically meant, whether something 
out of the Church as persecuting Emperors, or some- 
thing within the Church itself, either (a) the Pope, as 
is often affirmed by Protestants, or (J?) the spirit of 
sectarianism and secession which prevails so exten- 
sively in these modern times, as has been maintained 
by others. 

But, manifestly, whether in the Church or out of 
it, it is an evil influence or power that bodes great 
danger and evil, against which it is quite necessary 
we should be on our guard. And, most manifestly, 



AS A BA SIS OF UNION. 1 6 1 

whatever else it may be, it is not the Ministry or any 
part of them, which our Lord appointed for the 
edification of His Church and to whom He gave the 
word and work of reconciliation (2 Cor. v. 18-19) so 
long as they preach only what is written in the 
Bible and confine themselves to the Province to 
which their field of labor is properly assigned, 

V. I read that Professor Fisher, of Yale College, 
has been delivering some lectures in. which he claims 
that " Historical Science" is teaching that, (1) " no 
specific form of Church government can boast of 
being an Apostolic ordinance, (2) intended to endure 
for all time." 

Now, suppose both of these were proved or con- 
ceded, it remains true beyond a doubt, 

1. That our Lord founded a Church which was to 
endure through all time (Math. xvi. 16-1S) and to 
which, as a visible Church or Society of believers 
in Him, " He added daily such as should be saved. 
(Acts ii. 47.) 

2. It is equally certain that He appointed (gave) 
a Ministry in divers orders for the work of preach- 
ing the Gospel and building up his Church, the 
necessity for which it will last as long as the 
Church itself endures. (Eph. iv. 1 1— 17.) 

3. And it is equally certain that He never gave 
to any who would be His disciples any permission 
to separate from the Chruch so instituted and provi- 
ded for — nor any authority to set up a ministry of 
their own who should speak and act in His name. 



l6 2 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

Nay, St. Paul himself says that " in the last days 
perilous times will come"— perhaps after the Papal 
influence has confused and misled all men's notions 
in regard to the Church and Primitive Christianity, 
so that they do not know where or what the Church 
is — -a time when men will not endure what he calls 
" sound doctrine," but will " heap to themselves teach- 
ers" such as they like. (2 Tim. iii. I ; iv. 3.) 

Surely this is not applied nor applicable to the 
Ministry which Christ sent to preach His Gospel — 
" the sound doctrine" which they are authorized and 
commanded to preach. 

If, then, we accept the doctrine that no particular 
form of Church government was established that 
was intended to be permanent or of binding obliga- 
tion, what are we to do ? 

Only one of two things is possible. I. No change 
can be made in the form of Church government 
without the retention of this Ministry and their con- 
sent and co-operation to any change we may propose ; 
or, 2, we may have so many Churches, totally inde- 
pendent and without union or inter-communion, as 
persons of different minds or tastes may choose to 
organize for themselves for such purposes. 

Not even " two or three" can get together for 
worship without some one " to take the lead." They 
cannot, of course, have the Sacraments of Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper without some one to admin- 
ister them. In fact, not even so many as two or 



v/ 



AS A BASIS OF UNION. 



163 



three professing to be disciples or believers, can get 
together for the purpose of forming a church with- 
out doing for themselves and by autlwrity which they 
assttme, just what Our Lord authorized His Ministry 
to do for His Church, — just what He " gave" or ap- 
pointed them to do. And they cannot live as 
Christian believers without some such organization. 

It is true, that Professor Fisher thinks that mon- 
archies, and all forms of hereditary government are 
passing away, and that therefore all traces of a di- 
vinly appointed Ministry, or what is claimed to be 
such, is also passing away. 

I quite agree with the learned Professor that all 
forms of hereditary government are passing away 
and must disappear in the course of ages. And I 
am very glad he has said it. Kings and Nobles of 
hereditaiy rights have been a necessity in the past, 
just as the Papal usurpations were a necessity — a 
necessary evil — in the Middle Ages. 

But our Lord did not come to teach politics and tell 
us what should be, or ought to be, in the State. His 
Kingdom is not of this World. He did, however, 
institute a Church and appoint for it a Ministry and 
assign them a work that was not only for all nations, 
but for all time, " even unto the end of the world." 
And the Ministry — His Ministry — cannot cease 
until His word fails and His Church shall have 
ceased to exist. 



164 THE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

Or does the Professor look forward to a time when 
the Gospel will not need to be preached, when Chris- 
tianity will become a mere philosophy, without Sac- 
raments, Worship or Ritual, and discipline, for a 
godly life ? and which every man may take, as he 
does now, some system of philosophy or science, 
accept it and follow its precepts, if he sees fit, or 
rejects them and casts them off as idle prejudices, 
superstitions of a past age, which humanity has out- 
grown. and no man has need for, if that be his choice ? 

But the fact that Dr. Fisher can teach and is 
teaching such doctrines, (for he is rot only the au- 
thor of several books that are highly commended, 
but also a Professor in the theological department 
of Yale University,) shows " that the Church Idea," 
or any fair understanding and appreciation of that 
idea as entertained by our Lord Himself, and both 
taught and put in practice by his inspired Apostles, 
have not yet become sufficiently diffused and ac- 
cepted to allow us to hope for or expect any very 
sudden union of Christendom into one Fold. 

VI. In these pages I have made no effort to 
show that "the Historic Episcopate," or the order of 
Bishops as distinct from Presbyters or Deacons in 
the Ministry which our Lord instituted in his Church, 
is of divine appointment or was intended to be per- 
petual. 

We have seen, however, that in the very first or 
oldest of the Canons, the distinction was recognized 



AS A BASIS OF UNION, 1 65 

and its perpetuation was provided for. The Canons 
of the General Councils from Nice A. D* 325, and 
onward, continued the same policy, although, at this 
time, the Provincial System was fully established 
with its Archbishop or Metropolitan in each Prov- 
ince over the three or more Bishops in the Province, 
as they were over the Presbyters and Deacons. 
But I think it too manifest for denial or argument: 

1. That the order of Bishops which is the essen- 
tial feature of " Historic Episcopate" is, if not of 
divine appointment, yet not so repugnant to, or in- 
consistent with, our Lord's appointments as to be 
properly a cause or a justification, even, of separation 
from the Church that retains it, or of abstaining 
from its ministrations, and, 

2. That if we should abandon it and unite with 
the non-Episcopal Denominations without its con- 
tinuance, we should be regarded as uniting with 
them and on their ground, rather than our bringing 
them into the Church — by all the older Branches of 
the Church — Anglican or Roman, Russian or East- 
ern. 

Besides, many of us regard the Episcopate as of 
divine institution and therefore cannot consent to 
give it up, whereas, I do not know as one of the 
Denominations have any conscientious scruples 
against it. 

VI. Doubtless there are some things said in the 
Holy Scriptures, that are accidental and designed to 



1^6 ^ HE PROVINCIAL SYSTEM 

be transitory. But it is a very dangerous thing to 
assume the responsibility of determining for ourselves 
what is to be regarded as essential, and what is only 
accidental and may be safely omitted. That which 
the Church has "bound" upon us we ought, I think, 
to feel bound to " observe and do." But whatever 
it has "loosed" or allowed its members to leave un- 
done, that, I think, we may safely feel " loosed" or 
released from, for all the purposes of the salvation 
of our souls. 

But we must have some authority to determine 
for us what we are to do, what we may do, and what 
we may leave undone. If every one has the right to 
decide for himself there can be no rule or law. 
And where there is no "law" there is no " transgres- 
sion, "nor discipline and no punishment. If each one 
is left " to do what is right in his own eyes," even 
with the Bible in his hand, there can be no Church, 
no organization that has, or can have any binding 
force, or that can treat with authority, " bind or 
loose" anything on earth so as to be bound in God's 
sight. The questions to which I refer are numerous, 
though 1 limit myself to those of them that are in 
themselves not of essential importance to the exist- 
ence of a Church. 

Not to refer to what may be called doctrinal or 
theoretical matter, such instances as these may ~be 
cited ; all of them presenting questions on which 
Churches are now divided : shall we keep the first 



AS A BASIS OF UNION. 167 

day of the week or the seventh, as the weekly holiday ? 
Shall we baptize our children in their infancy, or 
must we wait until they are adults ? Shall we bap- 
tize by immersion only, or may we baptize by affu- 
sion as well ? Shall Ave retain the old custom of " an- 
ointing the sick" or allow it to be omitted? Shall 
we administer the Lord's Supper in the two kinds, 
or only in one? Shall we retain the three Orders 
in the Ministry, or go back, to what is claimed by 
many, to have been the earlier form — Presbyterian- 
ism or Congregationalism ? Or shall we omit Min- 
istry and Sacraments altogether, as some, at least, 
of those who profess to be " Bible Christians" seem 
to prefer? 

It is sometimes claimed that what is not so ob- 
vious in the Scriptures that all can find it, cannot be 
essential. Perhaps so, But then, no two can get 
together for worship and the administration of the 
Sacraments which our Lord ordained, without doing 
something for which there is no specific command 
or instruction in the Scriptures. 

But however essential or accidental and unimpor- 
tant these matters of organization and detail in wor- 
ship may be, I think no one can fail to see that it is 
best for his spiritual welfare — best as a matter of 
faith and of obedience to our Lord Himself, to have 
(i) if possible and as far as practicable those princi- 
ples of organization, and these rites and ceremo- 
nies which He ordained or " commanded" His Apos- 



1 68 THE PRO VI NCI A L S YSTEM- 

ties to teach all nations to observe or (2) if we need 
others and more, to have such as have been or- 
dained and established by those to whom He gave 
the authority for this very thing. 

In fact, neither our Lord nor His Apostles seem 
to have contemplated the time when His Church, or 
any Branch of His Church, should become so cor- 
rupt, either in faith or in morals, as to justify His 
disciples to withdraw from it. If we can judge from 
His example and teachings, see Math, xxxiii. 1-5, 
He would have them remain in the Church, abstain 
from its evil works and evil teachings, and try to re- 
form it. If it should " cast them out," as the Scribes 
and Pharisees did His Disciples from their Syna- 
gogues, and even put them to death as the Jewish 
Church did our Lord Himself, so much the worse 
for the Church. It can do them no spiritual harm^ 
and the time will come, if they are indeed in the 
right and worthy of it, when the Church itself will 
accept their views and honor them as martyrs. 



CHAPTER VII. 

CONCLUSION— A PLEA FOR UNITY. 

I am not willing to close this Essay without a few 
words which, though in no way connected with my 
arguments, are of a personal character, both in regard 
to myself and the readers of these pages. 

I. I am one of those who not only believe in the 
Provincial System, but also in the necessity of some 
adaptation of the Church and its methods, by that sys- 
tem, to our times and to our forms of government. 
It is not quite easy to see how far the changes may 
go, or how far they can go, without forfeiting our 
claims to be a Branch of the true Vine and the bles- 
sings and benefits that flow from a connection with it. 

As I have said in the last chapters, there has hith- 
erto been no Government that was not in relations 
with the Church, either (i) of open and avowed op- 
position and persecution — or (2) of oppression and 
restriction under the pretense of protection, And, 



170 



CONCLUSION. 



I have expressed my belief that there is no possibil- 
ity of any other relation, besides the one or the other 
of these two, so long as Governments have a hered- 
itary Monarchy or hereditay class, in any form, that 
controls, or aims to control, the people of the Na- 
tion. 

One of three things seem to me, therefore, to be 
inevitable under such a government: (i) oppression, 
(2) " protection" with its inevitable restrictions and 
control, or (3) the Church so small as to be but 
one of many sects which are so numerous and influ- 
ential that they will quarrel among themselves and 
neutralize any influence which the Church itself 
might attempt to exercise over the reigning family — 
or the aristocracy of the land. 

But with us, and our form of Government, there is 
no danger, as there is no need, of such an influence. 
Our Rulers are elected by the people, and for limi- 
ted, but short, periods. If we like them, v/e can re- 
elect them, or if we choose we can elect others in 
their places at the expiration of the period for which 
they were elected. 

Nor is there any danger that a Church that is 
without the pretentions of the Papal Supremacy, will 
attempt to control the Government. For, even if they 
were all of one way of thinking, and all the believers 
in our land were one united body — One Body — the 
Romanists having rejected the Papal Supremacy, it 
could and would neither aim nor wish to do anything 



A PLEA FOR L'XITY. 



171 



more than the Denominations, all of them, do now, 
in preaching and insisting upon the general princi- 
ples of Christian faith and morality among all our 
people. 

But there must be some, perhaps much, adapta- 
tion which shall of course be such, and such only, as 
we have the right and authority to make in conjunc- 
tion with the Ministry which our Lord appointed to 
act wherever and whenever they, in sufficient num- 
bers, may be gathered together in His Name for 
that purpose. 

II. We hear much said, indeed, about "salvation 
by faith alone." We also read, he that believeth in 
the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. (Acts xvi. 31.) 
But we are also assured that " faith without works, 
is dead. "(James in 17.) "With faith there must be 
not only the works of a righteous and holy life, but 
also obedience — the observance of the Institutions 
of Christian righteousness — Baptism, Public Wor- 
ship, the Lord's Supper, and such like, as well. 

But a Church, without any idea of its divine origin 
and a sense of the obligation, to abide by, and 
teach " the Faith once delivered to the Saints," as 
expressed in the Apostles' creed, and expanded in 
the Nicene creed, has no chance or prospect of per- 
manence or long continuance, however it may be 
organized or conduct its worship. The one Church 
which our Lord, the only Savoiur of men, founded, is 
the only one against which the gates of Hell will not 
prevail. 



172 



CONCLUSION. 



I believe there is no one of the older Denomina- 
tions that has not departed from the creed or doc- 
trinal basis on which it started into existence, and 
for the sake of which it separated from "the His- 
toric Episcopate." The Congregationalists, as I un- 
derstand, those of them I mean who have not left the 
Denomination, agree now in doctrine more nearly 
with the early Unitarians, the Unitarians of fifty years 
ago, than they do with their ancestors of one hun- 
dred and fifty years ago. The Methodists, as I under- 
stand, no where hold and teach now the views of 
Sacraments and the Church, which were held by their 
great founder, John Wesley. And even the Presby- 
terians are not only divided into some six or seven 
11 churches" as I understand, but the most conserva- 
tive of them all, scarcely hold to the extreme doc- 
trines of the Westminister Confession, and they are, 
even now, discussing some important changes in 
their doctrinal standards, either throwing out, or, at 
least, allowing their members to dissent from, the 
very doctrines on account of which their ancestors, 
some two hundred and fifty years sgo, separated 
from the Church of England, when they found that 
they could not control it. 

The Presbyterian Assembly, which has just closed 
its session, reports that they have in the five States 
of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and 
Michigan, 518 churches without a Pastor, and most 
of them have no prospect or hope of ever having 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. 



173 



any; 354 have less than 30 members each. They 
claim about 7,000 Parishes in the country, of which 
1,139 are vacant ; 327, with less than 50 members; 
319, with less than 25 ; and 219, with only 10, or 
less. 

Surely, a Church animated and inspired with the 
idea and belief in its divine origin and mission, could 
exhibit no such results in our country after two 
hundred and fifty years of existence. 

III. But, of all the forms of Christianity that are 
professed amongst us, I think that the Romish, 
though claiming divine origin and promise of perpe- 
tuity, has the least ground of hope for standing 
against and resisting the portentious power of infi- 
delity that confronts us, or of reclaiming men from 
its influence. 

The few converts that the advocates of Roman- 
ism make — and they are very few indeed — may be 
referred to these classes (and I have known, person- 
ally, examples of them all). 

I. The highly intellectual, who really have no 
love for the Papacy in itself, or for most of the doc- 
trines or practices of the Romish Church, but who 
accept it and them, because they can see no other 
means of holding back our people from the extremes 
of protestantism — and what they regard as only the 
next step, and inevitable consequence — infidelity. 
And of this class, small as it is, a large portion 



174 



CONCLUSION. 



have returned from their apostacy, as, for example, 
Ffoulkes and Littledale in England, and Forbes in 
America. 

2. The few who are in a measure educated, but 
who have no time or disposition to investigate and 
think for themselves, and want to have all questions 
of a religious and moral chracter settled for them 
by authority. 

3. And, finaly, which constitutes by far the larg- 
est class, those who are of an emotional or aesthetic 
constitution, who care but little for the orthodoxy 
or soundness of their theological views or for the 
claims to authority on Church matters, but whose 
religion consists to a very large extent of mere emo- 
tional piety, mere sentiment, and the beauties of 
ritual and worship. 

In any sound view of the case, religion is, to a large 
extent, a character which is not, and cannot be 
formed by any sudden change of belief or opinion. 
It is formed by habit and is transmitted from gener- 
ation to generation. 

Hence, no sudden change in the the masses of any 
community is possible or desirable. In the breaking 
away from old habits and associations, many of the 
most salutary restraints that ever act, or can act 
upon society are lost. (1) The more thoughtful and 
intellectual few will go with the new opinions, if 
they are better than the old ones. (2) Some, of a 
more conservative turn of mind, will adhere to the 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. 



1 75 



old views and ways, while (3) the great mass are 
likely to take advantage of the removal of the re- 
straints which is thus effected and go to " the bad" 
in " the way that leads to death." 

The Churches in the Roman Obedience, as I have 
repeatedly said, must reject " the Papal Supremacy" 
as it is now understood and claimed, which will 
doubtless pass away as soon as God has done 
using it for His purposes. 

But in this country the rejection of that Suprem- 
acy by its adherents would need to be followed by 
a change of Doctrines and Ritual, very much the 
same as that which was effected in England in the 
sixteenth century. 

IV. But, as for the Denominations, as they are 
called, they must come to admit and realize the fact 
that our Lord did "build a Church," that He ap- 
pointed a Ministry " in divers orders," to do " the 
work of the Ministry," the Ministry of reconcilia- 
tion," that, He and they " added to that Church daily, 
"such as should be saved" as His Disciples, that He 
prayed that " they all might be one" and that they 
warned the disciples against " heresies" and "schisms" 
in the Church and " secessions" from it, as well as 
against the "heaping to themselves" teachers that 
might keep these secessions in existence as Denom- 
inations or Sects contrary to His Word and Will. 

In the Apostles days those who believed and were 
baptised, were regarded as in the way of Salvation, 



176 



CONCLUSION. 



Heresies, divisions among those who were within 
the Church, were classed among " the works of 
the flesh," which they that had fallen into them must 
repent of in order to feel sure of final salvation. 

But there were others who seceded from the 
Church. St. John says of them, (1 John ii. 19,) 
" they went out from us, but they were not of us, 
for if they had been of us they would have contin- 
ued with us." 

These words, as we have seen, were written 
about A. D. 90, some thirty years after Linus, the 
first Bishop of Rome, some twenty or more years 
after Evodius, the predecessor of St. Ignatius, of 
whom I have so often spoken as Bishop of Antioch 
before St. John died, and for twenty or more years 
during his lifetime. About thirty years, also, after 
Annianus, the first Bishop of Alexandria, St. 
Mark, and while (probably) Simeon, who succeeded 
St. James in that See, was Bishop of Jerusalem. 

We have no means of knowing, very definitely 
who these "seceders" were. It is certain that they 
had been in the Church, and left it on account of 
some doctrine that they held in regard to the Father 
and the Son, and the relation between them. Both 
Gnosticism, which claims to understand and explain 
all things, even the mysteries of the faith, thus mak- 
ing of Chistianity a mere philosophy, and some forms 
of Monasticism, that denied the salvability and res- 
urrection of the body, and insisted upon not only 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. \yj 

self denial, but the crucifixion or torture of the 
body, as the source, seat and origin of all the evil 
that is in us, made their appearance in the Apostles' 
days, and it is most likely that these are the Sects 
to which St. John refers in the words already quoted. 

We are told that they "went out" not that they 
were cast out. They left voluntarily and formed 
churches of their own in which they could have their 
views preached, if not to the exclusion of all others, 
yet, so as to give that prominence to them that 
they thought to be desirable. 

We find, indeed, heresy spoken of as a sufficient 
ground for expulsion in individual cases in the Apos- 
tolic times. But the Church, and the Churches in 
the different Provinces, seem to have been, in those 
early days, exceedingly tolerant of diversity of opin- 
ions so long as men would consent to " walk by the 
same rule." 

The Primitive " Church Idea" seems to have been 
quite the reverse of that of our modern Sects in re- 
gard to this matter. 

Thus, our Lord, in His answer to Nicodemussaid 
" born of water and of the spirit," putting water 
first. So, (in Acts ii. 47,) " the Lord added to the 
Church daily such as should be saved." The Spirit 
and " saving knowledge" were to come after and in 
the Church. St. Paul observes the same order 
(1 Tim. ii. 4): God "who will have all men to be 



i;8 



CONCLUSION. 



saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 
So, (in 2 Tim. ii. 25,) " repentance tathe acknowledg- 
ing of the truth." 

This is also in accordance with the Old Testament 
teachings ; for there we read not only that " the fear 
of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," but also in 
the Prophets, (Hos. vi. 3,) then shall we know, if we 
follow on, to know the Lord." 

And our Lord said, more emphatically and defi- 
nitely still (John vii. 17) " If any man will do His 
will he shall know of the doctrine." Obedience be- 
fore knowledge and as a condition to it. Faith and 
love, leading to obedience and giving a docile dispo- 
sition, and the two, docility and obedience, leading 
to knowledge, a knowledge of the truth. This seems 
to be a divine order. 

V. I shall make no attempt to indicate what 
changes must take place in our Branch of the 
Church. If the Church is to be one, it must be com- 
prehensive as well ; and comprehensive, too, in more 
senses than one. The Pan Anglican Council, which 
met in 1888, admitted that there might not only be 
necessary some changes in the statements of the 
XXXIX, Articles, but more than that, that some 
changes might be both expedient and desirable. 
And one of the ablest of the English Bishops, Words- 
worth, has intimated that we may find it necessary 
to go back of even the Council of Nice, to the more 
primitive forms of the Apostles' Creed. 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. 



179 



The guilt of schism does not always rest exclu- 
sively with those who secede ; though always and in- 
evitably a part of it does rest upon them — how large 
a part of it no human being can tell. But in many 
cases the responsibility for the schism does rest, in 
part, upon the Church itself. If, for example, the 
English Church had been in doctrines and practices 
in the days of Wesley what it now is, there would 
have been no secession of his followers, no Meth- 
odists as an organized body, outside of, and distinct 
from, the Church in England, or probably in America. 

But times change and we change with them. 
There have been times when the Church could not, if 
it would, pursue a liberal policy, and times, indeed, 
when it has no conception of such a policy, or even 
of the possibility of it. He that would drive, and 
whose duty it is do so, must hold the reins accord- 
ing to the team he has in hand. 

There are times and circumstances in the Church, as 
in the family, when certain things may be safely al- 
lowed, which cannot be tolerated at others without 
utter demoralization, disorganization, and total loss 
of that authority for good which is the divinely given 
prerogative, to both the Church and the family. 

And it often becomes a very difficult matter, even 
for the wisest men, to decide when to tolerate an 
error or an eccentricity, and allow it to correct itself 
or the prevailing good sense of the community rather, 
to correct it, and when to exercise the authority, which 



I SO CONCLUSION. 

in both cases, the Family and the Church, was given 
them " for edification and not for destruction." 

In view of this fact, there can be no doubt that 
the Church itself, or the Branch of the Church which 
is concerned, shares in some cases, with the seceeders 
the guilt and the penalty too, of the schism. If there- 
fore, the Church can afford to tolerate their views, 
or thinks it can, the guilt of separation is wholly 
theirs, and no compromise or union can be effected 
without a total surrender of their errors on their 
part and a due submission to the authority of the 
Church. 

But, if instead of mere toleration they desire 
control, the case is different. The Presbyterians in 
England were freely allowed to preach their Calvin- 
ism, and to believe that Episcopacy was only 
an unnecessary superstructure upon the organiza- 
tion of the Primitive Church. But when they in- 
sisted that the Church, and everybody else in it, 
should hold, teach, and practice only their views, 
there was no longer a question of toleration for 
them. 

So with the Baptists. If they preferred immer- 
sion, the Church never objected to it. If they 
chose to defer the baptism of their children until 
riper years, and what they called " conversion," the 
Church, though strongly disapproving their views, 
would have tolerated them. But when they insisted 
that there should be nobody in the Church but Bap- 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. !gl 

tists, that is, of course, those who would accept and 
follow their views, they were seeking not toleration 
but the control of that Church which Christ had 
founded, and that Branch of it which He had estab- 
lished for their guidance in this matter. 

As a matter of fact, the Church of England and 
her daughter in America, is " broader" in her Views 
and more tolerant of diversities of opinions and of 
practices within her borders and among her mem- 
bers, than any one of the Sects or Denominations 
around us — unless it be the Unitarians or Agnostics, 
who have scarcely any one article of belief that they 
insist upon as essential. 

And, indeed, her very position and claim of divine 
origin and authority, as well as her belief in her own 
perpetuity, enables her to be thus tolerant and lib- 
eral. 

Within her borders there is a Church sentiment, 
a " Church idea," that rules and controls to a very 
large extent all minds and hearts, and will either 
bring them back from their errors and eccentricities, 
the peculiarities of " the ecclesiastical measles" as one 
of our Bishops called them, or put them into 
such isolation, virtually "switching them aside," that 
they do, and can do, but very little harm, and that 
of a most transitory character. In times of general 
intelligence and with free discussion and toleration, 
the Spirit of the Lord which resides in the Church 
will prevail and bring all things right in the end. 



1 82 CONCLUSION. 

In the Church, by Holy Baptism — ■" the washing 
of Regeneration" — to use St. Paul's expression (Tit. 
iii. 5,) and then by (i) the outward influence of man 
by instruction, example, culture, and refinement, and 
(2) by the inward \nfiuenze of the Holy Spirit — born 
of the water and of the Spirit — we are, or may be, 
trained up to all the knowledge we can have of 
things divine, and there, by these influences, we may 
have not only our ignorance, overcome our errors 
in knowledge corrected, but all our faults in charac- 
ter reformed, and ourselves — souls and bodies as 
well, — trained for happiness and for Heaven. 

VI. I am well aware that many, perhaps the most, 
of those who are professing believers among the 
Sects have an idea of an " invisible Church" which 
includes all who are to be finally among " the saved," 
whether they are in the visible Church or not. And 
hence they infer, that it can be of no great import- 
ance whether they are in that Church or not. 

It is worth noticing in this connection, (1) that 
the word Church is used in but one place in the 
Gospels, that is, but once used before our Lord's 
Ascension, and that is in the oft-quoted texts, Math, 
xvi. 18, and xviii. 17. And (2) from that time on- 
ward, that is, after the founding of the Church by 
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Whit-Sunday, 
this word is constantly used. Before that time the 
term used by the Evangelists to denote the work 
our Lord was doing is, "the Kingdom of God," or, 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. 



133 



" the Kingdom of Heaven ;" the one of them used 
about as often as the other, and each of them about 
seventy times. 

But from the time of Whit-Sunday, "the Lord ad- 
ded to His Church such as should be saved. ' It 
was now, and from this time onward, the Church. 
And this word occurs some one hundred and fifty 
times in the Acts and Epistles. 

What this difference in the use of the two terms and 
its signification may be, I will not undertake to dis* 
cuss or set forth. It may be that the terms " King- 
dom of Heaven" and " Kingdom of God" are in- 
tended to denote and include all those who are to 
be included in the "many Mansions" of God's Heav- 
enly Kingdom, whether Christians or not. It is ex- 
pressly said of infants who cannot be considered as 
conscious believers, and who cannot of themselves, 
have made any profession of faith that " of such is 
the Kingdom of God — or Heaven." (Luke xiii. 28- 

29,) 

And it is said expressly of some of those who are 
departed this life, as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and 
all the prophets, that they are to be, if they are not 
now, " in the Kingdom of God." And so, too, shall 
"men come from the East, and from the West, from 
the North, and from the South," to occupy seats in 
that Kingdom, as it would seem, persons who have 
not known Christ by name. 



1 84 



CONCLUSION. 



But, be this as it may, when, after it was estab- 
lished, the Church is spoken of, or the word is 
used to denote persons living on the Earth, it denotes 
that visible society to which persons were admitted 
by Baptism and Confirmation, and in which the be- 
lievers were warned against the sins of heresy and 
schism, of apostacy, and the heaping to themselves 
teachers and of Anti-Christ. 

And this Church, it was, that our Lord would 
have to be united and One ; that by the love and 
holy lives of its members, and their unity among 
themselves, not only in communion and fellowship, 
but also in their testimony to Him and the great 
fundamental doctrines of His religion, the world 
might believe in Him, and that influence for mor- 
ality and religion, for the good of all men, might be 
exerted on all persons and especially the young, 
which never fails to come from practices and opin- 
ions that are accepted by all, and universally prevail 
in every community, no one disputing or dis- 
senting from them. 

In an invisible church, there can be no " heresy" 
in the sense of the word which implies that there is 
danger in it, and there can be no schism. From it, 
there can be no secession or " going out" of those of 
its members who are not thoroughly one in spirit 
with it. And, among the members of such a Church, 
there can be no agreement or uniformity of testimony 
to anything — nobody knows, or can know who they 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. 



135 



are, they are known to God only — to anything, I 
say, practice or opinion, which will exert that influ- 
ence for which our Lord so earnestly prayed on that 
night in which He was betrayed. 

VII. But, of course, men are held responsible for 
belief in our Lord and observance of whatever He 
has commanded, only where the Gospel has been 
preached and there are men claiming to be the Min- 
isters of Christ. 

But in Christian lands, the constant experience is, 
that one by one, here and there one, and then another 
" is pricked in the heart" by that unseen and myste- 
rious influence, which, like the wind, bloweth where 
it listeth, and which emanates from the Cross and 
from Him who was " lifted up upon It ;" and they go, 
not always, or often, to their Bibles, but to some one 
who claims to be a Preacher of the Gospel, sent to 
be their guide and instructor in matters that pertain 
to the salvation of their souls. 

I believe that all writers on Moral Philosophy make 
an important distinction, so far as guilt or innocence 
is concerned, between mistakes of fact, or rather ig- 
norance of fact and ignorance of principle. The dif- 
ference is illustrated by supposing, for one case, that 
a man takes what is not his own by mistake, suppos- 
ing that it is his own ; then, for the other example, 
we have the case of a man who takes property 
knowing that it is not his, but not knowing or think- 
ing that it is wrong to steal. 



1 86 CONCLUSION. 

The distinction is well founded on a most impor- 
tant difference. Whoever thinks, or knows, that 
Jesus Christ is the Lord and Saviour of men, knows, 
as a matter of principle, that He ought to beloved and 
obeyed in all matters that He has taught directly by 
His own mouth, or indirectly by any persons to 
whom He has given authority therefor. 

But, with the most profound knowledge of the 
principle, there may be ignorance or mistake as to 
the fact, to whom he has given such authority, or 
which body of Christians claiming to be a Branch of 
His Church are really so, or are in fact only false or 
mistaken pretenders — schismatic intruders — into the 
Sacred Fold. 

" If ye love me, keep my commandments." Here 
is both Principle and Precept. There can be no mis- 
take about the Principle, but "the commandments" 
are not all written in the Gospels ; " the world would 
not contain all the books." And He gave His Disci- 
ples many " commandments" during " the great forty 
days" which they were to teach all nations to ob- 
serve. And so, too, in a subordinate way, whatever 
His Church, or any Branch of it, has legitimately 
taught as a Creed to be professed, or a Rule of life 
to be observed, is to be regarded as having been 
commanded by Him. And herein consists the 
ground and danger, the only ground and danger of 
mistake in regard to matters of fact. 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. 187 

If the Papal Supremacy and obedience to the 
Bishops of Rome are for all Christians among those 
" commands," then that Supremacy will prevail. 
But if the claim is wholly without foundation in the 
Holy Scriptures, and entirely inconsistent with 
what the Church understood and ordained in its 
early Canons, as I have endeavored to show in these 
pages, then no argument from expediency can cause 
it to prevail. " If it be of God, we cannot overthrow 
it." But if it be a mere matter of human invention, 
the schemes of ambitious demagogues, or of 
Jesuitical trickery and fraud, it will most assuredly, 
in due time, "come to naught." And so of the 
rest. 

Hence, the proper thing for people everywhere to 
do is, as it seems to me, to look for those who come 
to them in the name of Christ, and profess to preach 
His Gospel, administer his Sacraments, and point 
out, and lead in the way of salvation which He pre- 
scribed for His followers. And I have the greatest 
confidence that all who do so in good faith will re- 
ceive the chief blessings and benefits of Christ's Re- 
ligion, whatever may be the faults or defects of the 
system, whether of doctrine or of Church govern- 
ment, that is presented to them. 

I say " in good faith," and in the spirit of sincere 
and devout obedience, as unto the Lord. For I can- 
not but regard this obedience to what is believed to 
be his will, as the essential thing, on our part. On 



1 88 CONCLUSION. 

the part of God, doubtless, the Atonement is the 
one indispensable condition of our salvation. But 
wherever there is the spirit of obedience resulting 
from the faith in the Lord Himself, now that the 
Atonement has been made once for all — I cannot 
doubt that the gracious God — the God that so loved 
the world that He gave His only Son, rather than 
that any should perish, will overlook any amount of 
error that is not contrary to the natural reason and 
instincts of man, notwithstanding any chasms there 
may be in the history and successions of the minis- 
try, (if, indeed, there are any,) which He has not given 
them the means and the opportunity to investigate 
for themselves. 

I say " means and opportunity," for with the 
spirit of obedience and docility which I have postu- 
lated as always accompanying and flowing from 
true faith, there can, and will be, no neglect to use any 
means which one has the ability and the opportunity 
to use, to find the truth and the true lines of duty. 
God is gracious and merciful, and requires of no man 
that which He does not give the means and the op- 
portunity to do. 

VIII. Does one ask, then, if I think that obe- 
dience to Church authority is of more importance 
than soundness in Faith ? I answer that in certain 
cases, and for certain persons, it may be so. But, in 
a country where the Bible is to be had by every one 
who wants a copy— and for those who have learned 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. ^9 

or can learn to read it if they choose to do so, I have 
no doubt a very grave amount of responsibility at- 
taches to them, for both their soundness in the Faith 
and the catholicity of their Church relations, as 
against the sins of heresy and schism. 

Of course, there can be no doubt of the rights, 
and the duty, too, of private judgment for each in- 
dividual, in the last resort. One that has the means 
to study the Holy Scriptures and has done so, may 
doubt the interpretation that has been put upon 
any passage in them, by the Church to which he 
belongs. So, too, we have the perfect and ultimate 
right to doubt and dissent from any canon, ritual, or 
law, that the Church has made or may make, appeal- 
ing to God, Who is the ultimate Judge of all Men. 

But no one that reads the Bible can doubt that 
God has given authority to His Ministry, and to 
each and every Branch of His Church, not only to 
preach the Gospel, but also to rightly and duly ad- 
minister the Sacraments ; and more than this, to pre- 
scribe rules and regulations for its members with a 
view to guide, and to aid them, in the matter of 
leading a holy life. 

Hence, of necessity, notwithstanding the ultimate 
right of private judgment, and in fact, in view of it, 
the presumption is always in favor of what the 
church, to which any one belongs, has taught, and 
hence must be received and obeyed unless it is so 



190 



CONCLUISON. 



clearly contrary to God's written Word as to make 
disobedience, and even separation, if need be, justi- 
fiable. 

The Person of Christ, our Lord, the Truths which 
He taught, the Ministry which He appointed, and 
the institutions and Commands which He gave His 
Apostles to teach, "teach all nations to observe," are, 
umdoubtedly, the chief things, and the only known 
means of human salvation. The Ministry are " to 
preach" and teach men " to observe" in all nations, 
to all people that dwell on the face of the whole 
Earth all things that are needful for them. 
And wherever " two or three" of them are gathered 
" in His Name," they have authority for all things 
pertaining to His Kingdom that can possibly be re- 
quired for the special regulations for any Branch of 
the Church. 

We have, then, three points in the Rule for the 
Christian Life. 

1. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord and 
Saviour of all men. 

2. Observe all things whatsoever our Lord Jesus 
Christ has commanded His Apostles to teach us to 
observe. 

3. Obey them that have the rule over us and 
" watch for our souls as they that must give account." 

And these two last can be adequately done only 
in that Branch of the Church which is the Provin- 
cial Church for the country where we live, with its 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. 



I 9 I 



Ministry, so long as they confine themselves within 
the legitimate sphere of duty and legislation. 

And those who are obedient are being trained 
through their faith and love, for Heaven, where they 
will see God as He is. There can be no athe- 
ism or agnosticism there. There they will see that 
God is, and that His Will is perfect righteousness, 
and His Love is unbounded — infinite. 

And the very idea of divine origin and authority, 
which I have so often spoken of, and insisted upon 
in these pages, gives not only efficiency, but sanc- 
tity as well, to the discipline of a godly life, which 
in some form or another, and under some pretense 
or another, all church organizations, and all bodies 
of Christians, attempt to provide for. But if the au- 
thority "is of God," and we can give prominence to 
this idea without invalidating our claims to be the 
Church that is of God, and not of men merely, we 
add unspeakably to its influence for good, in training 
our souls, while we live here, for Heaven, hereafter. 

But " knowledge" is of comparatively little im- 
portance. There are cases in which "it puffeth up." 
But faith, and love, and obedience, docility, and 
humble-mindedness, the disposition to know and to 
do the Will of God that proceed from it, rather than 
the " understanding of all the mysteries" of His Na- 
ture, are the essential things in the Christian charac- 
ter. 



192 



CONCLUSION. 



And we see everywhere around us, and in all times 
past, that the peculiarities of the religious system 
which one adopts exert a powerful influence upon 
his character, his tastes and habits, his preferences 
and enjoyments, corresponding to its character. 
We have little or no difficulty in discriminating, by 
these means and traits, the members of the different 
churches that exist around us. And we do not need 
to know them long, nor very intimately, to see that 
one is a Romanist, another a Presbyterian or a Meth- 
odist, a Universalist or an Agnostic. 

It is, indeed, quite true, that we know and can 
understand but very little, in this life, of the condi- 
tion and means of enjoyment or of suffering in the 
next. But besides the one great ineradicable differ- 
ence between the two great classes, we have enough 
told us to assure us that among the " saved," there are 
different degrees and kinds of happiness dependent, 
most likely, on the characters and habits both of 
body and of mind which we form here. 

Little as we know of the joys and means of pleas- 
ure and enjoyment of the blessed in Heaven, we 
cannot doubt that among the chief sources and 
means of their happiness, will be the pleasure they 
take in doing right, with none of the hindrances they 
experience in this world, and in seeing good trium- 
phant, and the will of God done everywhere, and by 
all intelligent beings who do, or can know, and un- 
derstand that Will. 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. jg* 

And if we know but very little of the nature and 
means of the happiness of the Blessed in the future 
state, we know less, perhaps, of the nature of the 
punishment that awaits those that are lost. 

But there is one word which is used by our Lord, 
which seems to me to be especially significant. It 
is KoXaais, translated " punishment" (Math xxv. 46). 
But it means " training" by restraint and con- 
straint, so that the wicked cannot do the evil that 
is their choice, and must do, will be compelled to 
do what they ought to do, and what true believers 
will do as a matter of loving obedience to the will of 
God. 

And I suppose that we can all think of persons for 
whom there could scarcely be a greater punishment 
than to be compelled to do and say just what they 
ought, and nothing else. 

IX. We are all familiar with the declaration of 
our Lord in regard to His Church, ''the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it." (Math. xvi. 18.) 
It is generally understood that this implies that that 
Church should never become either (1) extinct, and 
cease to exist, or (2) become apostate. 

But I think it may fairly be understood as teach- 
ing that the gates of hell shall never prevail against 
it, so far, or to such an extent, that even one single 
soul that trusts himself to the guidance of that Branch 
of the Church which the Lord has established in the 



! 94 CONCLUSION. 

Province or Country where he lives, shall ever fail 
of its final salvation, however faulty that Church 
may be. 

We are all familiar, also, with our Lord's declara- 
tion (Luke xii. 47,) with regard to the Servant who 
" knew not his Lord's will," and did it not because he 
knew it not, he shall be "beaten with few stripes." 

" Beaten with stripes" doubtless, that is, he will 
come short, in some respects, of the rewards of him 
that both knew and did that will. But his lot will 
be, by no means, as that of the Servant who knew, 
or perhaps might have known, if he had made proper 
efforts, and did it not. He shall be beaten with 
many stripes; suffer the just punishment for his 
want of faith and for his deeds. 

And I think that the two cases referred to at the 
beginning of this Essay, are instructive and quite to 
the point. 

The poor woman, with the issue of blood, had 
doubtless done all that she knew, or had the means 
of knowing to be necessary, and would have done 
all or anything more if she had known, or thought 
it to be necessary, and she was healed. 

So with the thief on the cross. He had confessed 
Christ and begged for mercy and salvation. He 
may have known nothing of the Divine Nature of 
Christ, nothing of the atoning efficacy of that 
Death of which he was an unwilling witness. He 
certainly had no opportunity, or means, of receiving 



A PLEA FOR UNITY. jg^ 

Baptism or participating in the Holy Sacrament of 
our Lord's Body and Blood. And yet, he was as- 
sured of that, in regard to which many of us who live 
where the Gospel is fully preached, and to whom 
abundance of opportunity is afforded for an open and 
public following of Him — may, and must, be fairly 
anxious while in time — of being in Paradise with our 
Lord, at last. 

However, it is not ours to judge of the fate of 
others. Nor is it necessary that we should know. 
Our Lord began his Ministry with the exhortation, 
" enter ye in at the straight gate." And when His 
disciples asked Him whether there were many, or 
few, that be saved, He repeated the injunction, 
"strive to enter in at the straight gate." And his 
last rebuke to St. Peter was given, when he inquired 
about the final fate of his brother Apostle, St. John. 
Our Lord's answer was, what business is that of 
yours? " If I will that he tarry till I come, what is 
that to you ? follow thou Me." Surely, these con- 
siderations are enough to check our speculations 
about others, and to fix all our thoughts upon the 
one thing that concerns ourselves. 

We have the Holy Scriptures in our hands, which 
contain all that our Lord has seen fit to give us by 
way of written instruction concerning His will. And 
we have a Branch, a Provincial Branch, of His 
Church in our land, which is abundantly competent 
for all that our Lord intended any Church to do in 



196 CONCLUSION. 

guiding its members in the way of salvation. Let 
us heed its instructions and follow on to know, until 
we come to know, by personal experience, of His 
will, if not in this world, then, surely, in the next, of 
the doctrines, whether they be true or false, and 
finally come to know, even as we are known by Him 
who knoweth all things. 

I close this Essay, which has already far exceeded 
the limits I first intended, with the words of the 
blessed Apostle St, Paul — the Apostle to the Gen- 
tiles — that "speaking the truth in love" we " may 
grow up into Him who is the Head, even Christ, in 
whom the whole Body fitly joined together and com- 
pacted by that which every joint supplieth according 
to the effectual working in the measure of every part, 
maketh increase of the Body unto the edifying of 
itself in Love." 



THE END. 



